Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on December 23, 2025. This action is made FINAL.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-16, 18, 20-21, and 23 remain pending in the application. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 17, 19, and 22 have been cancelled. The amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/02/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-16, 18, 20-21, and 23 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.
The limitation “determining, in real time and based on the medication inventory metric corresponding to a threshold, the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication is a significant likelihood” in independent claims 1 and 21, recites elements without support in the original disclosure (i.e., introduces new matter). The specification lacks support for determining, in real time… the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication is a significant likelihood. While the specification does disclose “the medication inventory management system may, in real time, detect a potential or actual shortage of a medication, dynamically make adjustments, such as at medication dispensers, and/or recommend mitigation strategies to allocate and conserve the medication that may be in short supply” (See Applicant’s specification [0033]), there is no support for determining the interruption in supply of the medication is a significant likelihood, in real time. Therefore, this limitation is new matter (See MPEP 608.04).
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, 7, 9-16, 18, 20-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Step 1 analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a system, and Claim 21 is drawn to a method (i.e., process), which are within the four statutory categories. (Step 1 – Yes, the claim falls into one of the statutory categories).
Step 2A analysis – Prong One:
Claim 1 recites:
A system, 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 medication inventory system, medication inventory data comprising an ordered quantity of a medication ordered to supply a medical facility and a received quantity of the medication delivered to the medical facility, wherein the medication inventory data is received after receipt of the received quantity by the medical facility;
generating, based on the medication inventory data, a medication inventory metric, by determining a difference between the ordered quantity and the received quantity, wherein the medication inventory metric indicates a likelihood of an interruption in supply of the medication to the medical facility; and
determining, in real time and based on the medication inventory metric corresponding to a threshold, the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication is a significant likelihood; and
adjusting, based on the medication inventory metric, a medical device within the medical facility to conserve usage of the medication, wherein the adjusting comprises transmitting an alert indicating the likelihood of the interruption in the supply of the medication to the medical facility, wherein the alert includes a recommended action of moving at least a portion of the medication stored at a medication dispenser associated with the medical facility to a second medication dispenser, a request for selection of an alternative medication that is different from the medication ordered at the medical facility, or an adjustment at the medication dispenser.
The system as recited in the underlined limitations above describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions, and therefore falls within the scope of certain methods of organizing human activity. Fundamentally, the method is that of a person gathering inventory information for a healthcare facility and determining if there is an interruption in supply of the medication, which encompasses a person interacting with another individual including following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of managing interactions between people.
The system as recited above also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas, and describes concepts that can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Generating a medication inventory metric indicating a likelihood of an interruption in supply, determining a difference between the ordered quantity and the received quantity, and determining, in real time and based on the medication inventory metric corresponding to a threshold, the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication is a significant likelihood, can all be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea of a mental process.
Claim 21 recites/describes nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore also recites limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A analysis – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, independent claims 1 and 21 recite the following additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components: at least one data processor, at least one memory storing instructions, and adjusting a medical device. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Specifically, the processor can be special or general purpose (see specification par. 90), the memory can include a non-transitory computer-readable or machine-readable storage medium (see specification par. 23), and the medical device may include a dispenser system, such as a medication dispenser or dispensing station, an automated dispensing cabinet, an anesthesia station, or the like (see specification par. 38).
The additional elements of “receiving, from a medication inventory system, medication inventory data comprising an ordered quantity of a medication ordered to supply a medical facility and a received quantity of the medication delivered to the medical facility, wherein the medication inventory data is received after receipt of the received quantity by the medical facility”, and “transmitting an alert indication the likelihood of the interruption in the supply of the medication to the medical facility, wherein the alert includes a recommended action of moving at least a portion of the medication stored at a medication dispenser associated with the medical facility to a second medication dispenser, a request for selection of an alternative medication that is different from the medication ordered at the medical facility, or an adjustment at the medication dispenser ” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B analysis:
As discussed above in “Step 2A analysis – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in Independent Claims 1 and 21 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The additional elements of “receiving, from a medication inventory system, medication inventory data comprising an ordered quantity of a medication ordered to supply a medical facility and a received quantity of the medication delivered to the medical facility, wherein the medication inventory data is received after receipt of the received quantity by the medical facility”, and “transmitting an alert indication the likelihood of the interruption in the supply of the medication to the medical facility, wherein the alert includes a recommended action of moving at least a portion of the medication stored at a medication dispenser associated with the medical facility to a second medication dispenser, a request for selection of an alternative medication that is different from the medication ordered at the medical facility, or an adjustment at the medication dispenser” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be an insignificant limitation as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Here, the claim limitations are similar to receiving and sending information over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OJP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll)(i)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the steps for managing medication inventory amount to no more than using computer related devices to implement the abstract idea.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: Independent claims - NO).
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 3, 5, 7, 9-16, 18, 20, and 23 are directed towards elements used to describe the adjustment of the medical device, the metric, medical facilities, and display. These elements describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions, and therefore fall within the same scope of certain methods of organizing human activity as the independent claims.
The elements as recited above also falls within the same “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas as the independent claims, and describes concepts that can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Determining a shortage of the medication, detecting a measure of statistical significance as compared to the medication inventory data, detecting receipt of the received quantity, adjusting the medication inventory metric, adjusting a protocol, detecting a request to access a medication dispenser, identifying a shortage of the medication, generating a second medication inventory metric, and comparing the first medication inventory metric to a second medication inventory are all tasks that can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the dependent claims recite an abstract idea of a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the dependent
claims recite the following additional elements beyond the abstract idea: a display of an inventory level of a medication, a display of a historical usage, a display of an inventory level of an alternative medication, a display of a second medication inventory metric, displaying a graphical element on a display. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Specifically, the displays may be a cathode ray tube (CRT) or a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a light emitting diode (LED) monitor for displaying (see specification par. 92).
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to
any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not
indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a
technical problem. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an
ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are
directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional
elements are not integrated into a practical application).
As discussed above, the identified additional elements in Dependent Claims 3-16, 18, 20, and 22-23 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot
provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the
additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other
technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of
additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: Dependent claims - NO).
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, 3, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney et al. (US 2020/0320470) (Hereinafter Whitney), further in view of Darmour et al. (US 2021/0081840) (Hereinafter Darmour).
Regarding Claim 1, Whitney teaches the following:
A system ([0019] A system of the disclosure includes a pharmaceutical procurement platform for managing pharmaceutical inventory and ordering processes), comprising:
at least one data processor ([0090] The pharmaceutical procurement platform is capable of running one or more processors); and
at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations ([0090] The pharmaceutical procurement platform is capable of running one or more processors capable of executing instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable storage medium to provide one or more of the functionalities illustrated) comprising:
receiving, from a medication inventory system, medication inventory data ([0068] Information received may include location identifiers, drug product identifiers, current inventory quantity, maximum inventory quantity, minimum inventory quantity, average usage, stock out event, lot, and expiration date) comprising an ordered quantity of a medication ordered to supply a medical facility ([0080] a quantity for each drug product ordered by a healthcare location) and a received quantity of the medication delivered to the medical facility, wherein the medication inventory data is received after receipt of the received quantity by the medical facility ([0078] allows users to manually enter order acknowledgement, tracking, and receipt data.);
generating, based on the medication inventory data, a medication inventory metric, wherein the medication inventory metric indicates a likelihood of an interruption in supply of the medication to the medical facility ([0071] predicts drug shortages internally based on a variety of data within the system. Each element is utilized in the neural network to deliver a shortage risk score. The neural network determines where there is likely to be an internal shortage of a certain medication, class of medications, or drug product at the ordering location);
determining, in real time and based on the medication inventory metric corresponding to a threshold, the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication [is a significant likelihood] ([0165], [0171] In response to the predicted shortage likelihood meeting the threshold, generating a notification for a user comprising the predicted shortage likelihood. Pinging an API of the third-party administrator with one or more of the third-party administrator identifier for the ordering location and drug product identifier; receiving a response from the third-party administrator by way of an application program interface (API), wherein the response comprises real-time accumulation data for the one or more drug products satisfying the medication need);
adjusting, based on the medication inventory metric, a medical device within the medical facility to conserve usage of the medication ([0109] the component for managing medication shortages can monitor and consolidate allocations across the health system to optimize health system access to shortage medications), wherein the adjusting comprises transmitting an alert indicating the likelihood of the interruption in the supply of the medication to the medical facility ([0027], [0165] drug shortage information will be provided to pharmaceutical ordering locations through website postings, mailed notifications, emailed notification, and so forth. In response to the predicted shortage likelihood meeting the threshold, generating a notification for a user comprising the predicted shortage likelihood), wherein the alert includes a recommended action of moving at least a portion of the medication stored at a medication dispenser associated with the medical facility to a second medication dispenser, a request for selection of an alternative medication that is different from the medication ordered at the medical facility, or an adjustment at the medication dispenser ([0108], [0109], [0165] In response to the predicted shortage likelihood meeting the threshold, generating a notification for a user comprising the predicted shortage likelihood. The reporting and predictive analytics may perform drug product shortage analysis. This includes determining whether there is currently a shortage of a certain drug product or there is likely to be a future shortage of the drug product. This analysis may include identifying potential alternatives to the drug product when there is a shortage. the component can monitor and consolidate allocations across the health system to optimize health system access to shortage medications.).
However, Whitney does not disclose the following that is met by Darmour:
determining a difference between the ordered quantity and the received quantity ([0040], [0042], [0053] Examples of deviation types include, but are not limited to, a change in: a quantity of product to be supplied. A level of sentiment may indicate a level of severity of a supply plan deviation and/or an acknowledgement of the severity on the part of the supplier causing the deviation. The product management system may receive analyses of the supplier notifications and identify current inventory levels, historical shipment and/or supply depletion data for the product, and outstanding, but unfulfilled, orders for the product, and may use them for the comparison analysis.)
determining the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication is a significant likelihood ([0051], [0053] elements of the machine learning application may then apply the techniques described (e.g., sentiment analysis, trained machine learning model analysis, supply scoring) to analyze a notification, identify a deviation, identify a severity level of a deviation and a corresponding acceptability of a remedial action, score a supplier, among other analytical operations. The analysis can be used to estimate supply impacts for the product and identify a severity of the deviation); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the system which includes indicating a likelihood of interruption in the supply, as taught by Whitney, with the step for determining a difference between ordered quantity and received quantity, as well as determining the likelihood of interruption in supply is significant, because by having a threshold for severity levels, the system can determine a broader impact of the deviations in supply (See Darmour [0098]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Whitney and Darmour teaches the system of claim 1, and Whitney further teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the alert comprises one or more of a display of an inventory level of the medication at the medical facility, a display of a historical usage of the medication at the medical facility, a display of an inventory level of the alternative medication at the medical facility, and a display of a second medication inventory metric associated with the alternative medication ([0026] an inventory management system includes an automated dispensing system such as cabinets, carousels, robotics, virtual shelves, and so forth that manage the drug inventory at all times. An inventory management system can interface with a wholesaler and build a recommended drug order based on current inventory numbers.).
Regarding Claim 21, Whitney teaches the following:
A method (Abstract: A method), comprising:
receiving, from a medication inventory system, medication inventory data ([0068] Information received may include location identifiers, drug product identifiers, current inventory quantity, maximum inventory quantity, minimum inventory quantity, average usage, stock out event, lot, and expiration date) comprising an ordered quantity of a medication ordered ([0080] a quantity for each drug product ordered by a healthcare location) to supply a medical facility and a received quantity of the medication at the medical facility, wherein the medication inventory data is received after receipt of received quantity by the medical facility ([0078] allows users to manually enter order acknowledgement, tracking, and receipt data.);
generating, based on the medication inventory data, a medication inventory metric, wherein the medication inventory metric indicates a likelihood of an interruption in supply of the medication to the medical facility ([0071] predicts drug shortages internally based on a variety of data within the system. Each element is utilized in the neural network to deliver a shortage risk score. The neural network determines where there is likely to be an internal shortage of a certain medication, class of medications, or drug product at the ordering location);
determining, in real time and based on the medication inventory metric corresponding to a threshold, the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication [is a significant likelihood] ([0165], [0171] In response to the predicted shortage likelihood meeting the threshold, generating a notification for a user comprising the predicted shortage likelihood. Pinging an API of the third-party administrator with one or more of the third-party administrator identifier for the ordering location and drug product identifier; receiving a response from the third-party administrator by way of an application program interface (API), wherein the response comprises real-time accumulation data for the one or more drug products satisfying the medication need); and
adjusting, based on the medication inventory metric, a medical device within the medical facility to conserve usage of the medication ([0109] the component for managing medication shortages can monitor and consolidate allocations across the health system to optimize health system access to shortage medications), wherein the adjusting comprises transmitting an alert indicating the likelihood of the interruption in the supply of the medication to the medical facility ([0027], [0165] drug shortage information will be provided to pharmaceutical ordering locations through website postings, mailed notifications, emailed notification, and so forth. In response to the predicted shortage likelihood meeting the threshold, generating a notification for a user comprising the predicted shortage likelihood), wherein the alert includes a recommended action of moving at least a portion of the medication stored at a medication dispenser associated with the medical facility to a second medication dispenser, a request for selection of an alternative medication that is different from the medication ordered at the medical facility, or an adjustment at the medication dispenser ([0108], [0109], [0165] In response to the predicted shortage likelihood meeting the threshold, generating a notification for a user comprising the predicted shortage likelihood. The reporting and predictive analytics may perform drug product shortage analysis. This includes determining whether there is currently a shortage of a certain drug product or there is likely to be a future shortage of the drug product. This analysis may include identifying potential alternatives to the drug product when there is a shortage. the component can monitor and consolidate allocations across the health system to optimize health system access to shortage medications.).
However, Whitney does not disclose the following that is met by Darmour:
determining a difference between the ordered quantity and the received quantity ([0040], [0042], [0053] Examples of deviation types include, but are not limited to, a change in: a quantity of product to be supplied. A level of sentiment may indicate a level of severity of a supply plan deviation and/or an acknowledgement of the severity on the part of the supplier causing the deviation. The product management system may receive analyses of the supplier notifications and identify current inventory levels, historical shipment and/or supply depletion data for the product, and outstanding, but unfulfilled, orders for the product, and may use them for the comparison analysis.)
determining the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication is a significant likelihood ([0051], [0053] elements of the machine learning application may then apply the techniques described (e.g., sentiment analysis, trained machine learning model analysis, supply scoring) to analyze a notification, identify a deviation, identify a severity level of a deviation and a corresponding acceptability of a remedial action, score a supplier, among other analytical operations. The analysis can be used to estimate supply impacts for the product and identify a severity of the deviation); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the system which includes indicating a likelihood of interruption in the supply, as taught by Whitney, with the step for determining a difference between ordered quantity and received quantity, as well as determining the likelihood of interruption in supply is significant, because by having a threshold for severity levels, the system can determine a broader impact of the deviations in supply (See Darmour [0098]).
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The relevant art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Hines et al. (US 11,893,534) teaches a system for inventory management related to medical facilities and their medications.
Nielsen et al. (US 2020/0020443) teaches a system for predicting malfunction risks in medicine storage units, and when a malfunction is detected, moving the contents to an alternative medicine storage unit.
Malecha et al. (US 2019/0347606) teaches an inventory management system which generates inventory adjustment requests to achieve optimal inventory balance across a plurality of locations. The requests include a transfer order or rebalance order to initiate movement of inventory items between locations.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art: The limitations in Claims 5, 7, 9-16, 18, 20, and 23 stating the following, is free of the prior art:
Claim 5: The system of claim 1, wherein a second clinical need of the medication at the second medication dispenser is greater than a first clinical need of the medication at the medication dispenser.
Claim 7: The system of claim 1, wherein the medication inventory metric is a confidence level that indicates the likelihood of the interruption in the supply of the medication to the medical facility.
Claim 9: The system of claim 1 [[8]], wherein the operations further comprise determining, based on the medication inventory metric corresponding to a second threshold, a shortage of the medication.
Claim 10: The system of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise detecting, prior to generating the medication inventory metric, a measure of statistical significance as compared to the medication inventory data at the medication inventory system; and wherein the generating is in response to the detecting.
Claim 11: The system of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: detecting receipt of the received quantity at the medication inventory system.
Claim 12: The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from the medication inventory system, updated medication inventory data comprising another ordered quantity of the medication ordered to supply the medical facility and another received quantity of the medication at the medical facility, wherein the updated medication inventory data is received after receipt of the another received quantity by the medical facility; and adjusting, based on the updated medication inventory data, the medication inventory metric.
Claim 13: The system of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise displaying, based on the adjusted medication inventory metric, a graphical element on a display, wherein the graphical element indicates a change in the likelihood of the interruption in the supply of the medication to the medical facility.
Claim 14: The system of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: adjusting, based on the medication inventory metric, a protocol for handling the medication identified as having a supply interruption or shortage.
Claim 15: The system of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise: detecting a request to access a medication dispenser to retrieve the medication identified as having a supply interruption or shortage; and requiring, based on the adjusting, one or more of a witness during the access of the medication dispenser and an enhanced authentication or logging to access the medication from the medication dispenser.
Claim 16: The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, based on the medication inventory metric, a shortage of the medication.
Claim 18: The system of claim 1, wherein the medical facility is a first medical facility located in a first geographical region; wherein the medication inventory data is a first subset of the medication inventory data associated with the first medical facility; wherein the medication inventory metric is a first medication inventory metric that indicates a likelihood of an interruption in supply of the medication to the first medical facility; and wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from the medication inventory system, a second subset of the medication inventory data comprising a second ordered quantity of the medication ordered to supply a second medical facility located in a second geographical region and a second received quantity of the medication at the second medical facility, wherein the second subset of the medication inventory data is received after receipt of the second received quantity by the second medical facility; and generating, based on the second subset of the medication inventory data, a second medication inventory metric, wherein the second medication inventory metric indicates a likelihood of an interruption in supply of the medication to the second medical facility.
Claim 20: The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise comparing the first medication inventory metric to a second medication inventory metric, and wherein the operations further comprise detecting, based on the comparing, a trend in the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication.
Claim 23: The method of claim 21, wherein the alert further comprises one or more of a display of an inventory level of the medication at the medical facility, a display of a historical usage of the medication at the medical facility, a display of an inventory level of the alternative medication at the medical facility, and a display of a second medication inventory metric associated with the alternative medication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant argues the claims do not contain subject matter constituting a mental process, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, generating, based on medication inventory data, a medication inventory metric by determining a difference between the ordered quantity and the received quantity, wherein the medication inventory metric indicates a likelihood of an interruption in supply of the medication to the medical facility is a task that can be performed in the human mind. A person could calculate the difference between the ordered and received quantities of medication in their mind through observation and evaluation, and they could use that perceived information to generate a metric that describes the likelihood of an interruption in supply using their observations, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Further, determining, in real time and based on the medication inventory metric corresponding to a threshold, the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication is a significant likelihood, is a task that can also be performed in the human mind. A person who is evaluating the medication inventory can determine in their mind whether the interruption in supply is significant by using their observations, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Therefore, the claims constitute a mental process.
Furthermore, the applicant argues the limitation of adjusting, based on the medication inventory metric, a medical device within the medical facility to conserve usage of the medication, wherein the adjusting comprises transmitting an alert indicating the likelihood of the interruption in the supply of the medication to the medical facility, wherein the alert includes a recommended action of moving at least a portion of the medication stored at a medication dispenser associated with the medical facility to a second medication dispenser, a request for selection of an alternative medication that is different from the medication ordered at the medical facility, or an adjustment at the medication dispenser, cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The examiner agrees that this is not a mental process. However, this claim element has not been analyzed as part of the abstract idea but rather as an additional element which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Transmitting an alert indicating the likelihood of the interruption is insignificant extra solution activity because it is mere data outputting of transmitting an alert.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks pg. 9-10, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Darmour. Whitney does not disclose the limitations of determining a difference between the ordered quantity and the received quantity or determining, based on the medication inventory metric corresponding to a threshold, the likelihood of the interruption in supply of the medication is a significant likelihood. However, these limitations are taught by the newly found prior art, Darmour. Darmour paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0051], and [0053] disclose a deviation based on a change in the quantity ordered in comparison to received products, as well as determining a severity level of the likelihood of shortage in the supply.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXIS K VAN DUZER whose telephone number is (571)270-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8-5 CT.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/A.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682