DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 10/24/2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1-8:
“communication unit” . . . to communicate
“control unit”. . . for performing
“storage unit”. . . for storing
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, and a process, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 9 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 9, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
. . . communicate with a plurality of supplier peers mapped to a plurality of suppliers, a plurality of logistics company peers mapped to a plurality of logistics companies, and a plurality of demander peers mapped to a plurality of demander peers, which are approved to participate in a private network; (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could communicate with these stakeholders; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial coordinates of medicine purchases would perform this step in managing access to shipments of medicine amongst stakeholders)
. . . performing channel allocation and authority grant for the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers, using a result of authentication performed on the plurality of suppliers, the plurality of logistics companies, and the plurality of demanders on the basis of participant identification data provided by the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers; and (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform channel allocation and authority granting using results of authentication based on identification data in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial coordinates of medicine purchases would perform this step in managing access to shipments of medicine amongst stakeholders)
. . . storing channel information that defines a channel to which each of the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers belongs as a result of performing the channel allocation, and authority information that defines an inquiry right and an update right of each of the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers as a result of performing the authority grant. (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial coordinates of medicine purchases would perform this step in managing access to shipments of medicine amongst stakeholders)
The above elements, as a whole, recite a mental process since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the above elements recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since the steps above outline a process for monitoring and controlling access to information of medicines as they are distributed, a commercial sales activity and business relation.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A medicine information management apparatus comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a communication unit configured to. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a control unit for. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a storage unit for. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 10:
wherein the control unit generates a data stack including medicine identification data in response to an update request for registering the medicine identification data assigned to each medicine unit corresponding to a medicine order for each supplier received from each logistics company peer by a logistics company mapped to a corresponding logistics company peer,
and then controls the communication unit to transmit the data stack to a channel to which the corresponding logistics company peer belongs so that the data stack is added to medicine transaction books of all participants of the channel to which the corresponding logistics company peer belongs.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a data stack and send it to a channel to which stakeholders belong; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial coordinates of medicine purchases would perform this step in managing access to shipments of medicine amongst stakeholders.
Claims 3 and 11:
wherein the medicine identification data includes: a serial shipping container code (SSCC) assigned to the medicine unit;
and distribution status of the medicine unit,
and further includes at least one among a name, quantity, production area, production date, export date, shipping date, expiry date, manufacturing certificate, Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) evaluation report, and invoice of each medicine included in the medicine unit.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the medicine information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 4 and 12:
wherein when a query request for the medicine transaction book is received from a requesting peer that is any one among the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers, the control unit verifies an inquiry right of the requesting peer for the medicine transaction book using the authority information and the channel in- formation, and
transmits inquiry data acquired from the medicine transaction book to the requesting peer in response to the inquiry request when the inquiry right of the requesting peer is verified.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could verify an inquiry right in response to receiving a query and send a response to the query if the user has the right to the information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial coordinates of medicine purchases would perform this step in managing access to shipments of medicine amongst stakeholders.
Claims 5 and 13:
wherein the control unit generates medicine tracking information associated with each of the plurality of suppliers by date, wherein the medicine tracking information includes at least one among the number of new orders, the number of update requests received for all medicine orders, the number of orders before delivery, the number of orders being delivered, and the number of orders that have been delivered.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate medicine tracking information in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial coordinates of medicine purchases would perform this step in managing access to shipments of medicine amongst stakeholders.
Claims 6 and 14:
wherein the control unit generates medicine tracking information for each medicine unit associated with each of the plurality of suppliers,
wherein the medicine tracking information indicates an update event generated for the medicine unit and a time of generating the update event over a tracking period from a time of ordering the medicine unit to a present time.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate medicine tracking information in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial coordinates of medicine purchases would perform this step in managing access to shipments of medicine amongst stakeholders.
Claims 7 and 15:
wherein the control unit verifies, in response to a request for updating distribution status of the medicine unit received from a requesting peer that is any one among the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers, an update right of the requesting peer using the authority information and the channel information,
updates the distribution status of the medicine unit according to the update request when the update right of the requesting peer is verified, and
controls the communication unit to transmit a new data stack including an update result of the distribution status to a channel to which the requesting peer belongs so that the new data stack is added to the medicine transaction book.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform each of the verify, update, and transmit steps above; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial coordinates of medicine purchases would perform this step in managing access to shipments of medicine amongst stakeholders.
Claim 8:
wherein the distribution status indicates at least one among inventory storage information, delivery vehicle dispatch information, delivery status information, and temperature information of the medicine unit.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the distribution status used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atkinson et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180130158; hereinafter "Atkinson").
As per claim 1, Atkinson teaches:
A medicine information management apparatus comprising:
Atkinson teaches a system and method for managing information about assets which may comprise a pharmaceutical. (Atkinson: abstract, paragraph [0003, 70])
a communication unit configured to communicate with a plurality of supplier peers mapped to a plurality of suppliers, a plurality of logistics company peers mapped to a plurality of logistics companies, and a plurality of demander peers mapped to a plurality of demander peers, which are approved to participate in a private network;
Atkinson teaches a communications interface 103 which may communicate with peers on the network in the form of stakeholders. (Atkinson: paragraph [0057], Fig. 1) Atkinson further teaches that stakeholders may register on the system, wherein the peer devices may be mapped to the stakeholder, and wherein the stakeholders may comprise a manufacturer, buyer, seller, and shipper, and wherein each may be approved to register on the system. (Atkinson: paragraph [0059-65, 76, 98])
a control unit for performing channel allocation and authority grant for the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers, using a result of authentication performed on the plurality of suppliers, the plurality of logistics companies, and the plurality of demanders on the basis of participant identification data provided by the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers; and
Atkinson teaches a control unit in the form of a processor 101 which performs the functions of the system. (Atkinson: paragraph [0057], Fig. 1) Atkinson teaches that the hardware agent may register peers and their corresponding permissions (authority information) on the system, wherein the permission dictates access to information as well as the ability to add or update information. (Atkinson: paragraph [0067-68, 152-157]) Atkinson further teaches a channel allocation in the form of a trust set for the asset, wherein the trust set may be stored in the storage 133, 102, and may indicate which stakeholders are within the trust set. (Atkinson: paragraph [0015-17, 72-80], Fig. 2-3)
a storage unit for storing channel information that defines a channel to which each of the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers belongs as a result of performing the channel allocation, and authority information that defines an inquiry right and an update right of each of the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers as a result of performing the authority grant.
Atkinson teaches a control unit in the form of a processor 101 which performs the functions of the system. (Atkinson: paragraph [0057], Fig. 1) Atkinson teaches that the hardware agent may register peers and their corresponding permissions (authority information) on the system, wherein the permission dictates access to information as well as the ability to add or update information. (Atkinson: paragraph [0067-68, 152-157]) Atkinson further teaches a channel allocation in the form of a trust set for the asset, wherein the trust set may be stored in the storage 133, 102, and may indicate which stakeholders are within the trust set. (Atkinson: paragraph [0015-17, 72-80], Fig. 2-3)
As per claim 2, Atkinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the control unit generates a data stack including medicine identification data in response to an update request for registering the medicine identification data assigned to each medicine unit corresponding to a medicine order for each supplier received from each logistics company peer by a logistics company mapped to a corresponding logistics company peer,
Atkinson teaches that a data container including identification information for the good may be created, wherein the good may comprise a medicine, and wherein the data container may be established for the purchase of a good from a supplier by a buyer. (Atkinson: paragraphs [0003, 70, 75-76, 117-118])
and then controls the communication unit to transmit the data stack to a channel to which the corresponding logistics company peer belongs so that the data stack is added to medicine transaction books of all participants of the channel to which the corresponding logistics company peer belongs.
Atkinson teaches that a data container including identification information for the good may be created, wherein the good may comprise a medicine, and wherein the data container may be established for the purchase of a good from a supplier by a buyer, wherein when a good is purchased, the data containers of all individuals in the trust network may be updated. (Atkinson: paragraphs [0003, 72-82, 117-118])
As per claim 4, Atkinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein when a query request for the medicine transaction book is received from a requesting peer that is any one among the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers, the control unit verifies an inquiry right of the requesting peer for the medicine transaction book using the authority information and the channel in- formation, and
Atkinson teaches that any one of the stakeholders may request to access the data in the data container of the trust network, and the user's access permissions may be checked to determine if the user has permission to access the transaction data before sending it to the user. (Atkinson: paragraphs [0070-73, 75, 77, 80-82, 90-91])
transmits inquiry data acquired from the medicine transaction book to the requesting peer in response to the inquiry request when the inquiry right of the requesting peer is verified.
Atkinson teaches that any one of the stakeholders may request to access the data in the data container of the trust network, and the user's access permissions may be checked to determine if the user has permission to access the transaction data before sending it to the user. (Atkinson: paragraphs [0070-73, 75, 77, 80-82, 90-91])
As per claim 6, Atkinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the control unit generates medicine tracking information for each medicine unit associated with each of the plurality of suppliers,
Atkinson further teaches that the data container may comprise information regarding the time of receipt along a chain of custody as well as the length of time that a shipper had the item, and further teaches that timestamps of events may be recorded from the time of ordering to the time of delivery. (Atkinson: paragraph [0075-76, 78, 137-138])
wherein the medicine tracking information indicates an update event generated for the medicine unit and a time of generating the update event over a tracking period from a time of ordering the medicine unit to a present time.
Atkinson further teaches that the data container may comprise information regarding the time of receipt along a chain of custody as well as the length of time that a shipper had the item, and further teaches that timestamps of events may be recorded from the time of ordering to the time of delivery. (Atkinson: paragraph [0075-76, 78, 137-138])
As per claim 7, Atkinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the control unit verifies, in response to a request for updating distribution status of the medicine unit received from a requesting peer that is any one among the plurality of supplier peers, the plurality of logistics company peers, and the plurality of demander peers, an update right of the requesting peer using the authority information and the channel information,
Atkinson further teaches that the distribution status of the good may be updated as it is passed along a chain of custody by stakeholders. (Atkinson: paragraph [0076, 140]) Atkinson further teaches that the updating of the information may be conditioned upon the stakeholder's permission to do so. (Atkinson: paragraph [0064-65, 68, 73])
updates the distribution status of the medicine unit according to the update request when the update right of the requesting peer is verified, and
Atkinson further teaches that the distribution status of the good may be updated as it is passed along a chain of custody by stakeholders. (Atkinson: paragraph [0076, 140]) Atkinson further teaches that the updating of the information may be conditioned upon the stakeholder's permission to do so. (Atkinson: paragraph [0064-65, 68, 73])
controls the communication unit to transmit a new data stack including an update result of the distribution status to a channel to which the requesting peer belongs so that the new data stack is added to the medicine transaction book.
Atkinson further teaches that the distribution status of the good may be updated as it is passed along a chain of custody by stakeholders. (Atkinson: paragraph [0076, 140]) Atkinson further teaches that the updating of the information may be conditioned upon the stakeholder's permission to do so. (Atkinson: paragraph [0064-65, 68, 73]) Atkinson further teaches that as the product moves through its chain of custody, the data containers of all individuals in the trust network may be updated. (Atkinson: paragraphs [0003, 72-82, 117-118])
As per claim 8, Atkinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the distribution status indicates at least one among inventory storage information, delivery vehicle dispatch information, delivery status information, and temperature information of the medicine unit.
Atkinson further teaches that the distribution status of the good may be updated as it is passed along a chain of custody by stakeholders including from seller to shipper, and shipper to buyer. (Atkinson: paragraph [0076, 140]) Atkinson further teaches that the updating of the information may be conditioned upon the stakeholder's permission to do so. (Atkinson: paragraph [0064-65, 68, 73])
As per claim 9, Atkinson teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A medicine information management method comprising the steps of:
Atkinson teaches a system and method for managing information about assets which may comprise a pharmaceutical. (Atkinson: abstract, paragraph [0003, 70])
As per claims 10, 12, and 14-15, Atkinson teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2, 4, and 6-7, and claims 10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 4, and 6-7, as outlined above.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson in view of Sharma et al. (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20150262123; hereinafter "Sharma").
As per claim 3, Atkinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the medicine identification data includes: a serial shipping container code (SSCC) assigned to the medicine unit;
Sharma, however, teaches that a wireless tracking device may associate its stored ID with an SSCC assigned to it. (Sharma: paragraphs [0037-39, 53-55]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Atkinson, or by Sharma. Associating an SSCC with the information stored by the device does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Atkinson. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Atkinson with the teachings of Sharma since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Atkinson in view of Sharma further teaches:
and distribution status of the medicine unit,
Atkinson further teaches that distribution status in the form of location in a chain of custody may be added to the data container. (Atkinson: paragraph [0076])
and further includes at least one among a name, quantity, production area, production date, export date, shipping date, expiry date, manufacturing certificate, Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) evaluation report, and invoice of each medicine included in the medicine unit.
Atkinson further teaches that the data container may comprise a manufacturing date of the good, a model number of the good, and a serial number of the good. (Atkinson: paragraph [0075])
As per claim 11, Atkinson in view of Sharma teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 3, and claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3, as outlined above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson in view of Schunemann, Alan J. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20090012760; hereinafter 'Schunemann").
As per claim 5, Atkinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the control unit generates medicine tracking information associated with each of the plurality of suppliers by date, wherein the medicine tracking information includes at least one among the number of new orders, the number of update requests received for all medicine orders, the number of orders before delivery, the number of orders being delivered, and the number of orders that have been delivered.
Schunemann, however, teaches that a total number of new orders by day may be tracked by a system. (Schunemann: paragraph [0057], Fig. 4) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Atkinson or Schunemann. Keeping track of a number of new orders at the device each time it is used does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Atkinson. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Schunemann with the teachings of Atkinson, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 13, Atkinson in view of Schunemann teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 5, and claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628