DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 4 May 2026.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 24, 28, 29, 31, and 32 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 25-27, and 30 is/are amended. Claim(s) 33 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 25-27, 30, and 33 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 25-27, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation: suspending delivery of the prescription order to the patient until one of the following actions is performed by medical staff: (i) acknowledgement of the determination that the prescription order is inappropriate, (ii) providing a reason to continue delivery of the medication to the patient, and (iii) overriding the determination that the prescription order is inappropriate within a specified amount of time.
Applicant’s remarks do not appear to identify support for the identified limitation. Examiner considers [0043] of the pre-grant publication to be the only relevant portion of the originally filed disclosure.
[0043]: In addition, if desired, a yellow “caution” flag (or a red “stop” flag) may require acknowledgement from the medical staff (e.g., a nurse), and/or may prompt the medical staff to provide a reason for ignoring/overriding a yellow “caution” flag (or a red “stop” flag). Furthermore, if desired, a yellow “caution” flag (or a red “stop” flag) may require an override from a user having greater system privileges (e.g., a user with administrative level function privileges), and an override requirement may lead to suspension of further delivery of the medication if the required override is not received within a specified amount of time (e.g., 12 hours).
This disclosure contemplates suspending provision of the medication only on the condition that an override is not received within an amount of time. It does not describe or support suspending provision until an acknowledgement is received. It does not describe or support suspending provision until a reason is provided. It does not describe or support suspending provision “until … overriding the determination .. within a specified amount of time.” Regarding this last alternative, the disclosure describes the suspension as being initiated after an amount of time without receiving an override, in contrast to the claimed suspending until an override is received within the amount of time. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the identified disclosure as supporting the limitation. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation.
Because the claims include a non-original limitation which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore the claim is rejected under the written description requirement. Claim 30 is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 6, 14, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 26.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 26. Claim 14 is dependent on claim 33.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 33. Claim 23 is dependent on claim 30.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 6-11, 25-27 are directed to a system, which typically is an apparatus under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the identified claims do not recite any structural features of the apparatus. The claimed system comprises “an electronic medical record”, “a prescription order”, and “a database.” None of these elements require any structural feature and each may be interpreted as either data per se or software per se. Per MPEP 2106.03, “[p]roducts that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations” are not directed to any of the statutory categories. Because the claim does not fall within one of the statutory categories, it is determined not to be eligible.
Examiner notes that per MPEP 2106.03, “when a claim fails under Step 1 (Step 1: NO), but it appears from applicant’s disclosure that the claim could be amended to fall within a statutory category (Step 1: YES), the analysis should proceed to determine whether such an amended claim would qualify as eligible at Pathway A, B or C.” Here, the disclosure (See at least [0010] of the pre-grant publication) clearly contemplates a system comprising a central processing unit. Incorporating such a processing device into the claim would overcome this rejection. And as such, this claim will be considered for eligibility under Mayo/Alice.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 25-27, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 30, which is representative of claim 1, recites a method for preventing delivery of an inappropriate medication to a patient; the method comprising:
providing
a prescription order identifying a medication to be delivered to a patient;
a
determining that the prescription order is inappropriate vis-à-vis the data
updating the
suspending delivery of the prescription order to the patient until one of the following actions is performed by medical staff: (i) acknowledgement of the determination that the prescription order is inappropriate, (ii) providing a reason to continue delivery of the medication to the patient, and (iii) overriding the determination that the prescription order is inappropriate within a specified amount of time.
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of evaluating the appropriateness of a prescription order and controlling prescription delivery. This concept describes a mental process that a pharmacist should follow to manage prescription dispensing similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a database and electronic data. These additional elements reflect no improvement to technology. These additional elements do not require any particular machine. These additional elements do not effect a transformation of an article. And these additional elements do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, these additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. Because the additional elements, individually and as a combination, fail to integrate the claims into a practical application the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of electronic records and a database. However, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), storing information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of claims 30 and 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus claims 30 and 1 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 25-27, and 33 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 13, but these claims continue to recite abstract ideas, albeit narrowed ones. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 26, 27, and 33 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract ideas into practical applications for the reasons provided above. As such, claims 2, 3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 26, 27, 33 are also directed to abstract ideas. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract ideas for the reasons provided above. As such, the additional elements of claims 2, 3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 26, 27, and 33 do not amount to significantly more than their abstract ideas. Dependent claim 25 recites the additional element of a user interface. This additional element, when considered either individually or in combination with the previously identified additional elements, only generally links the narrowed abstract ideas to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, claim 25 is also directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the additional element of the user interface, when considered individually or in combination with the above identified additional elements, only generally links the narrowed abstract ideas to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, the additional elements of claim 25 does not amount to significantly more than its abstract idea. Because dependent claims 2, 3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 25-27, and 33 remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claims 2, 3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 25-27, and 33 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-23, 25-27, 30, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 2009/0210252 A1) in view of Lawlor (US 8170890 B1).
Regarding claim 1 and 30: Silver discloses a system for preventing delivery of an inappropriate medication to a patient, the system comprising:
an electronic medical record containing information regarding the medical condition of said patient (When a new order is placed 207, part of the analysis involves retrieving the patient's/resident's medical history through information already stored in the analysis unit 107. Clinical laboratory tests previously performed on the patient/resident are stored in -the analysis unit 107 at the time the tests were performed. Substantive information relating to the clinical test, including the results of the test are stored in the analysis unit 107 in such a way that the substantive information is available to the analysis unit 107 when analyzing a new order 207. See at least [0050]).
a prescription order identifying a medication to be delivered to said patient (When it is determined that a new order 103 for a medication is indicated, the order 103 is written and/or entered into a computer system via a suitable interface. As part of the order entry, the order is translated 105 and the substantive aspects of the order are extracted and translated into a standardized or proprietary format for entry into system for analysis 107. Substantive information contained in the medication order 103 may include: date of the order, patient/resident name and demographic information patient/resident ID number, healthcare facility, drug name, dosage and form (eg. tablet, liquid, intravenous (IV)). After translation 105, the substantive information is stored in an analysis unit 107 which may be a database or the like. See at least [0037]).
a database identifying contraindications and warnings for specific medications (Resources 111 other than the substantive information derived from entered orders 103 provide additional input to the analysis system 107. With respect to medications, additional resources 111 such as side effects, clinical indications, dosages, and interactions may be included in the analysis unit 107 and made available for analysis of incoming orders 103. See at least [0038]. Also: if the medication ordered is contra-indicated. See at least [0012]).
wherein the system is configured to determine that the prescription order is inappropriate vis-à-vis the database and the medical condition, of the patient, update the electronic medical record of the patient to indicate that the prescription order is inappropriate (When a new order 103 is placed, the substantive information relating to the order is stored in a database in the analysis unit 107. Analysis is performed based on the substantive information from the order to provide real-time feedback based on the available resources 111 also historical healthcare information stored in the database in the analysis unit 107. The medication order 103 is compared to clinical results and basic medical knowledge available to the analysis unit 107 and the appropriateness of the prescribed treatment is determined. See at least [0038]. Also: When an issue is detected with an order 301, 303, the central repository 307 is configured to notify the healthcare providers of the detected issue 311. Such notification may be in the form of a generated report 309 or a direct communication 311 to a healthcare provider in the form of an electronic message or the like. See at least [0055]. Also: Referring to FIG. 6, a sample report is shown indicating medications that may not be appropriate for the diagnosis provided in the order. See at least [0062]. Also: Other information relating to a patient, such as a potentially harmful drug interactions may be identified because healthcare information from the patient's/resident's previous medication orders 103 has been stored in the analysis unit 107 and are available for analysis when a new order 103 is placed. See at least [0040]).
Silver does not expressly disclose suspending delivery of the prescription order to the patient until one of the following actions is performed by medical staff: (i) acknowledgement of the determination that the prescription order is inappropriate, (ii) providing a reason to continue delivery of the medication to the patient, and (iii) overriding the determination that the prescription order is inappropriate within a specified amount of time.
Lawlor teaches suspending delivery of the prescription order to a patient until one of the following actions is performed by medical staff: (i) acknowledgement of a determination that the prescription order is inappropriate, (ii) providing a reason to continue delivery of the medication to the patient, and (iii) overriding the determination that the prescription order is inappropriate within a specified amount of time (The instant disclosure provides an embodiment of a method of inferring a possible pregnancy of a patient based on a prescription filled for a patient and blocking a subsequent sale of a drug contraindicated for pregnancy. See at least Column 2, Lines 20-23. Also: The embodiment of the method may also provide for the blocking to be overridden. For instance, after the block of the sale of the contraindicated drug, if a patient obtains subsequent medical authorization to fill the second prescription even though a possible pregnancy may exist, the pharmaceutical professional may override the blocking and allow the second prescription to be filled and sold. See at least Column 3, Lines 32-28).
Silver provides a system which determines if a prescription is inappropriate for a determined condition of a patient, upon which the claimed invention’s suspension of a prescription can be seen as an improvement. However, Lawlor demonstrates that the prior art already knew of suspending prescriptions if they are inappropriate for a condition of a patient. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Lawlor to the system of Silver. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Lawlor would have resulted in an improved system which would prevent patients from receiving medications that are inappropriate for their conditions. As such, the application of Lawlor, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Silver and the teachings of Lawlor.
Regarding claim 26 and 33: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. Silver further discloses wherein the system is further configured to (i) automatically monitor the electronic medical record of the patient for a change in the medical condition of the patient, (ii) after each change in the medical condition of the patient, determine the appropriateness of the prescription order vis-à-vis the current medical condition of the patient, and (iii) display the updated appropriateness of the prescription order to the user (With regard to blood thinning therapies, medications are given to certain patients at risk for clots that may travel through the blood stream and block vital arteries. Blood clotting times are closely monitored on patients undergoing blood thinning therapies and a historical record of blood tests are analyzed to maintain proper dosing. Similarly, treatments for anemia require close and ongoing monitoring of patients' hemoglobin levels to determine the appropriateness of the treatment and the patient's/resident's ongoing need for treatment. See at least [0005]. Also: Real-time reporting 117 is made possible through analysis 107 because all of the past and present medical information for the patient/resident are available to the analysis unit 107 at the time the order is entered or the request for information is made. When an inquiry is made, either through the entry of a new order 103 or through an ongoing treatment 101 request for information, information relating to the patient, including medications and clinical test results are available for compilation and display. See at least [0043]. Also: if a patient/resident is under a course of treatment for anemia, and is being prescribed Procrit.RTM., when a new order is placed for Procrit.RTM., the patients past medical information stored in the analysis unit 107 includes previous orders for Procrit.RTM. as well as previous clinical test results for the patient's/resident's hemoglobin and hematocrit (H & H) levels. The currently ordered dosage may be compared to prior dosages and their associated clinical laboratory test results at the time the prior dosages were given. The patient's/resident's previous H & H levels may provide an indication that the current dosage is too low, or that H & H levels may indicate that the Procrit.RTM. dosage may be reduced. If the dosage prescribed in the current new order 207 seems inappropriate based on analysis, a suggestion may be made to the healthcare provider who may then consider revising the order. See at least [0050]).
Regarding Claim 2 and 14: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. Silver further discloses wherein the updated appropriateness displayed to the user comprises at least one from the group consisting of a “proceed” indication, a “caution” indication and a “stop” indication (Referring to FIG. 6, a sample report is shown indicating medications that may not be appropriate for the diagnosis provided in the order. Medications may be grouped according to a diagnosis provided with the order. For some diagnoses 603, however, certain medications may be inappropriate or unnecessary. Using the data repository, a patient's/resident's 601 medications 605 may be compared to the diagnoses 603 to determine their appropriateness. When a medication 605 is associated with a diagnosis 603 that is not consistent with the medication ordered 605 it is included in the report. See at least [0062]. Also: If the dosage prescribed in the current new order 207 seems inappropriate based on analysis, a suggestion may be made to the healthcare provider who may then consider revising the order. See at least [0050]).
Regarding Claim 3 and 15: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. Silver further discloses wherein, when the updated appropriateness displayed to the user comprises at last one of a “caution” indication and a “stop” indication, the system also provides explanatory information (Referring to FIG. 6, a sample report is shown indicating medications that may not be appropriate for the diagnosis provided in the order. Medications may be grouped according to a diagnosis provided with the order. For some diagnoses 603, however, certain medications may be inappropriate or unnecessary. Using the data repository, a patient's/resident's 601 medications 605 may be compared to the diagnoses 603 to determine their appropriateness. When a medication 605 is associated with a diagnosis 603 that is not consistent with the medication ordered 605 it is included in the report. See at least [0062]. Also: If the dosage prescribed in the current new order 207 seems inappropriate based on analysis, a suggestion may be made to the healthcare provider who may then consider revising the order. See at least [0050]).
Regarding Claim 6 and 18: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. Silver further discloses wherein the updated appropriateness displayed to the user comprises a flag (Referring to FIG. 6, a sample report is shown indicating medications that may not be appropriate for the diagnosis provided in the order. Medications may be grouped according to a diagnosis provided with the order. For some diagnoses 603, however, certain medications may be inappropriate or unnecessary. Using the data repository, a patient's/resident's 601 medications 605 may be compared to the diagnoses 603 to determine their appropriateness. When a medication 605 is associated with a diagnosis 603 that is not consistent with the medication ordered 605 it is included in the report. See at least [0062]. Also: If the dosage prescribed in the current new order 207 seems inappropriate based on analysis, a suggestion may be made to the healthcare provider who may then consider revising the order. See at least [0050]. Also: Other information relating to a patient, such as a potentially harmful drug interactions may be identified because healthcare information from the patient's/resident's previous medication orders 103 has been stored in the analysis unit 107 and are available for analysis when a new order 103 is placed. See at least [0040]).
Regarding Claim 7 and 19: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. The limitation wherein the flag comprises a visual indicator is a description of information content. Here, the particular form of the flag does not perform or effect any function with respect to the system, and as such there is no functional relationship between the descriptive matter and the system. As such, this limitation is given limited patentable weight, and Silver in view of Lawlor is determined to continue to make obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8 and 20: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. The limitation wherein the visual indicator comprises at least one color selected from the group consisting of green, yellow, and red is a description of information content. Here, the particular form of the visual indicator does not perform or effect any function with respect to the system, and as such there is no functional relationship between the descriptive matter and the system. As such, this limitation is given limited patentable weight, and Silver in view of Lawlor is determined to continue to make obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9 and 21: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. The limitation wherein the visual indicator comprises at least one shape selected from the group consisting of a box, a triangle, and a circle is a description of information content. Here, the particular form of the visual indicator does not perform or effect any function with respect to the system, and as such there is no functional relationship between the descriptive matter and the system. As such, this limitation is given limited patentable weight, and Silver in view of Lawlor is determined to continue to make obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10 and 22: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. The limitation wherein the flag comprises an audible indicator is a description of information content. Here, the particular form of the flag does not perform or effect any function with respect to the system, and as such there is no functional relationship between the descriptive matter and the system. As such, this limitation is given limited patentable weight, and Silver in view of Lawlor is determined to continue to make obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11 and 23: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. Silver further discloses wherein the prescription order further comprises at least one of a dosage and a delivery schedule (When it is determined that a new order 103 for a medication is indicated, the order 103 is written and/or entered into a computer system via a suitable interface. As part of the order entry, the order is translated 105 and the substantive aspects of the order are extracted and translated into a standardized or proprietary format for entry into system for analysis 107. Substantive information contained in the medication order 103 may include: date of the order, patient/resident name and demographic information patient/resident ID number, healthcare facility, drug name, dosage and form (eg. tablet, liquid, intravenous (IV)). After translation 105, the substantive information is stored in an analysis unit 107 which may be a database or the like. See at least [0037]).
Regarding Claim 25: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. Silver further discloses a user interface for displaying that the prescription order is inappropriate to a user (When an issue is detected with an order 301, 303, the central repository 307 is configured to notify the healthcare providers of the detected issue 311. Such notification may be in the form of a generated report 309 or a direct communication 311 to a healthcare provider in the form of an electronic message or the like. See at least [0055]. Also: Referring to FIG. 6, a sample report is shown indicating medications that may not be appropriate for the diagnosis provided in the order. See at least [0062]. Also: The reports 117 may be delivered electronically, such as on a computer display, or may be generated into a computer file that may be downloaded or e-mailed. See at least [0043]).
Regarding Claim 27: Silver in view of Lawlor makes obvious the above limitations. Silver further disclose update the electronic medical record to indicate the updated appropriateness of the prescription order (The patient's/resident's previous H & H levels may provide an indication that the current dosage is too low, or that H & H levels may indicate that the Procrit.RTM. dosage may be reduced. If the dosage prescribed in the current new order 207 seems inappropriate based on analysis, a suggestion may be made to the healthcare provider who may then consider revising the order. See at least [0050]. Also: Other information relating to a patient, such as a potentially harmful drug interactions may be identified because healthcare information from the patient's/resident's previous medication orders 103 has been stored in the analysis unit 107 and are available for analysis when a new order 103 is placed. See at least [0040]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(b) Rejections of claims 1-29: Applicant has now amended the claim to remove the “rules engine” from the claims. Applicant believes that 35 USC 112(f) is no longer invoked and the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is now moot.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 4 May 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. The prior rejection under 112(b) is withdrawn and 112(f) is no longer invoked.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(d) Rejections of claims 12 and 24: Applicant has now cancelled claims 12 and 24.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 4 May 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. The prior rejection under 112(d) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-32: Applicant believes the system and method set forth in amended claims 1 and 30 recite statutory subject matter that is more than an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 4 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more as explained in the updated rejection above.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 102 and 103 Rejections of claims 1-32: Applicant has now amended the claims in order to more clearly define the present invention.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 4 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are rendered moot by the amendment of claims 1 and 30.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 4 May 2026.
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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-07-17
Prosecution Insights