Detailed Notice
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
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-15, and 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 9-12, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,360 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-15, and 19-20 of the current application is similar to claims 1-4, 9-12, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,360 B1 as shown in the table below:
Application No. 18/892,029
U.S. Patent No. 12,142,360 B1
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method associated with retrieval of one or more prescription products, the method being performed via one or more processors, and the method comprising:
determining a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval;
subsequent to determining the completion status, obtaining an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
updating the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
causing an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individual;
identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval; and
completing the retrieval using the retrieval station.
1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating a retrieval of one or more prescription products, the method comprising:
obtaining, via one or more processors, an indication of a selection of one or more prescription products to be retrieved by an individual at a retrieval location via a scanning of a unique machine-readable code, wherein retrieval of the one or more prescription products is associated with one or more prerequisite tasks required to be completed prior to the retrieval;
determining, via the one or more processors, a completion status associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products, the completion status being based upon whether the one or more prerequisite tasks have been completed via the software application;
selecting, via the one or more processors and based upon the determined completion status, from among a plurality of retrieval stations located at the retrieval location, a particular retrieval station to be used for the retrieval,
the plurality of retrieval stations from which the selection is made comprising (i) one or more standard retrieval stations to be used for the retrieval when the one or more prerequisite tasks have not been completed prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code, and (ii) one or more express retrieval stations to be used when the one or more prerequisite tasks have been completed via a software application prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code; and
causing, via the one or more processors, an indication of the selected particular retrieval station to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting, via a scanning device located at the selected particular retrieval station, a scan of the unique machine-readable code;
identifying, via the one or more processors, the one or more prescription products, based upon the detected scan of the unique machine-readable code; and
causing, via the one or more processors, the one or more prescription products to be dispensed at the particular retrieval station.
2. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the individual associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products is a patient having a medical prescription corresponding to the one or more prescription products.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the individual associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products is a patient having a medical prescription corresponding to the one or more prescription products.
3. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the updated completion status indicates an eligibility to complete the retrieval via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
4. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the updated completion status indicates a lack of eligibility to complete the retrieval station via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
5. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the updated completion status indicates at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks required to make the retrieval eligible to be completed via the one or more express retrieval stations.
X
6. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising causing, via the one or more processors, a unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising causing, via the one or more processors, the unique machine-readable code to be provided to the mobile computing device associated with the individual.
7. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving an indication of a scan of the unique machine-readable code at the retrieval location; and responsive to receiving the indication of the scan, identifying a retrieval station to be used to complete the retrieval, the identified retrieval station being selected from among a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations, wherein the identification is based upon the updated completion status.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting, via a scanning device located at the selected particular retrieval station, a scan of the unique machine-readable code;
identifying, via the one or more processors, the one or more prescription products, based upon the detected scan of the unique machine-readable code; and
causing, via the one or more processors, the one or more prescription products to be dispensed at the particular retrieval station.
8. (Currently Amended) A computing system associated with retrieval of one or more prescription products, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
determine a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval;
subsequent to determining the completion status, obtain an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
update the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
cause an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individual;
identify, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval; and
complete the retrieval using the retrieval station.
10. A computing system configured to facilitate a retrieval of one or more prescription products, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
obtain an indication of a selection of one or more prescription products to be retrieved by an individual at a retrieval location via a scanning of a unique machine-readable code, wherein retrieval of the one or more prescription products is associated with one or more prerequisite tasks required to be completed prior to the retrieval;
determine a completion status associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products, the completion status being based upon whether the one or more prerequisite tasks have been completed via the software application;
select, based upon the determined completion status, from among a plurality of retrieval stations located at the retrieval location, a particular retrieval station to be used for the retrieval,
the plurality of retrieval stations from which the selection is made comprising (i) one or more standard retrieval stations to be used for the retrieval when the one or more prerequisite tasks have not been completed prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code, and (ii) one or more express retrieval stations to be used when the one or more prerequisite tasks have been completed via a software application prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code; and
cause an indication of the selected particular retrieval station to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual.
13. The system of claim 10, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the computing system to:
detect, via a scanning device located at the particular retrieval station, a scan of the unique machine-readable code;
identify the one or more prescription products based upon the detected scan of the unique machine-readable code; and
cause the one or more prescription products to be dispensed at the particular retrieval station.
9. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the individual associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products is a patient having a medical prescription corresponding to the one or more prescription products.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the individual associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products is a patient having a medical prescription corresponding to the one or more prescription products.
10. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the updated completion status indicates an eligibility to complete the retrieval via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
11. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the updated completion status indicates a lack of eligibility to complete the retrieval station via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
12. (Original) The system of claim 11, wherein the updated completion status indicates at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks required to make the retrieval eligible to be completed via the one or more express retrieval stations.
X
13. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the system to cause a unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the computing system to cause the unique machine-readable code to be provided to the mobile computing device associated with the individual.
14. (Original) The system of claim 13, wherein the instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the system to: receive an indication of a scan of the unique machine-readable code at the retrieval location; and responsive to receiving the indication of the scan, identify a retrieval station to be used to complete the retrieval, the identified retrieval station being selected from among a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations, wherein the identification is based upon the updated completion status.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the one or more processors, a request to communicate with a remote pharmacist, the request initiated by the individual; and
causing, via the one or more processors, a communication session to be initiated between the mobile computing device of the individual and a computing device of the remote pharmacist.
It would have been obvious by one skilled in the art to implement the computer-implemented method of claim 1 to the one or more computer-readable media of claim 14.
15. (Currently Amended) One or more computer-readable media storing non- transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed via one or more processors, cause one or more computers to:
determine a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval;
subsequent to determining the completion status, obtain an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
update the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks; cause an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individual;
identify, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval; and
complete the retrieval using the retrieval station.
19. One or more computer-readable media storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed via one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain an indication of a selection of one or more prescription products to be retrieved by an individual at a retrieval location via a scanning of a unique machine-readable code, wherein retrieval of the one or more prescription products is associated with one or more prerequisite tasks required to be completed prior to the retrieval;
determine a completion status associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products, the completion status being based upon whether the one or more prerequisite tasks have been completed via the software application;
select, based upon the determined completion status, from among a plurality of retrieval stations located at the retrieval location, a particular retrieval station to be used for the retrieval,
the plurality of retrieval stations from which the selection is made comprising (i) one or more standard retrieval stations to be used for the retrieval when the one or more prerequisite tasks have not been completed prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code, and (ii) one or more express retrieval stations to be used when the one or more prerequisite tasks have been completed via a software application prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code; and
cause an indication of the selected particular retrieval station to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual.
16. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the updated completion status indicates an eligibility to complete the retrieval via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
17. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the updated completion status indicates a lack of eligibility to complete the retrieval station via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
18. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the updated completion status indicates at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks required to make the retrieval eligible to be completed via the one or more express retrieval stations.
X
19. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the one or more computers to cause a unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual.
20. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 19, wherein the non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed via one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to cause the unique machine-readable code to be provided to the mobile computing device associated with the individual.
20. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the one or more computers to: receive an indication of a scan of the unique machine-readable code at the retrieval location; and responsive to receiving the indication of the scan, identify a retrieval station to be used to complete the retrieval, the identified retrieval station being selected from among a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations, wherein the identification is based upon the updated completion status.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the one or more processors, a request to communicate with a remote pharmacist, the request initiated by the individual; and
causing, via the one or more processors, a communication session to be initiated between the mobile computing device of the individual and a computing device of the remote pharmacist.
It would have been obvious by one skilled in the art to implement the computer-implemented method of claim 1 to the one or more computer-readable media of claim 20.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 11, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,328,801 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8, and 15 of the current application is similar to claims 1, 4, 11, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,328,801 B1 as shown in the table below:
Application No. 18/892,029
U.S. Patent No. 11,328,801 B1
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method associated with retrieval of one or more prescription products, the method being performed via one or more processors, and the method comprising:
determining a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval;
subsequent to determining the completion status, obtaining an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
updating the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
causing an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individual;
identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval; and
completing the retrieval using the retrieval station.
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a unique machine-readable code redeemable to retrieve one or more prescription products, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, via a software application executing on a mobile computing device of an individual, an indication of a selection of one or more prescription products to be retrieved by the individual at a retrieval location via a scanning of a unique machine-readable code, wherein retrieval of the one or more prescription products is associated with one or more prerequisite tasks required to be completed by the individual prior to the retrieval;
determining, via the one or more processors, a completion status associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products, the completion status being based upon whether each of the one or more prerequisite tasks has been completed via the software application;
selecting, via the one or more processors and based upon the determined completion status, from among a plurality of retrieval stations located at the retrieval location, a particular retrieval station to be used for the retrieval of the one or more prescription products,
the plurality of retrieval stations from which the selection is made comprising (i) one or more standard retrieval stations to be used for the retrieval when the one or more prerequisite tasks have not been completed prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code, and (ii) one or more express retrieval stations to be used when the one or more prerequisite tasks have been completed via the software application prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code;
generating, via the one or more processors, a notification associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products, the notification (i) comprising the unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval, and (ii) identifying the particular retrieval station at the retrieval location; and
transmitting, to the mobile computing device via the one or more processors, the notification.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting, via a scanning device located at the particular retrieval station, a scan of the unique machine-readable code;
identifying, via the one or more processors, the one or more prescription products, based upon the detected scan of the unique machine-readable code; and
causing, via the one or more processors, the one or more prescription products to be dispensed at the particular retrieval station.
2. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the individual associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products is a patient having a medical prescription corresponding to the one or more prescription products.
3. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the updated completion status indicates an eligibility to complete the retrieval via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
4. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the updated completion status indicates a lack of eligibility to complete the retrieval station via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
5. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the updated completion status indicates at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks required to make the retrieval eligible to be completed via the one or more express retrieval stations.
X
6. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising causing, via the one or more processors, a unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual.
X
7. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving an indication of a scan of the unique machine-readable code at the retrieval location; and responsive to receiving the indication of the scan, identifying a retrieval station to be used to complete the retrieval, the identified retrieval station being selected from among a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations, wherein the identification is based upon the updated completion status.
X
8. (Currently Amended) A computing system associated with retrieval of one or more prescription products, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
determine a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval;
subsequent to determining the completion status, obtain an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
update the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
cause an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individual;
identify, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval; and
complete the retrieval using the retrieval station.
11. A computing system configured to generate a unique machine-readable code redeemable to retrieve one or more prescription products, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
receive, via a software application executing on a mobile computing device of an individual, an indication of a selection of one or more prescription products to be retrieved by the individual at a retrieval location via a scanning of a unique machine-readable code, wherein retrieval of the one or more prescription products is associated with one or more prerequisite tasks required to be completed by the individual prior to the retrieval;
determine a completion status associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products, the completion status being based upon whether each of the one or more prerequisite tasks has been completed via the software application;
select, based upon the determined completion status, from among a plurality of retrieval stations located at the retrieval location, a particular retrieval station to be used for the retrieval of the one or more prescription products,
the plurality of retrieval stations from which the selection is made comprising (i) one or more standard retrieval stations to be used for the retrieval when the one or more prerequisite tasks have not been completed prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code, and (ii) one or more express retrieval stations to be used when the one or more prerequisite tasks have been completed via the software application prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code;
generate a notification associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products, the notification (i) comprising the unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval, and (ii) identifying the particular retrieval station at the retrieval location; and
transmit, to the mobile computing device, the notification.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the computing system to:
detect, via a scanning device located at the particular retrieval station, a scan of the unique machine-readable code;
identify the one or more prescription products, based upon the detected scan of the unique machine-readable code; and
cause the one or more prescription products to be dispensed at the particular retrieval station.
9. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the individual associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products is a patient having a medical prescription corresponding to the one or more prescription products.
X
10. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the updated completion status indicates an eligibility to complete the retrieval via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
11. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the updated completion status indicates a lack of eligibility to complete the retrieval station via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
12. (Original) The system of claim 11, wherein the updated completion status indicates at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks required to make the retrieval eligible to be completed via the one or more express retrieval stations.
X
13. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the system to cause a unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual.
X
14. (Original) The system of claim 13, wherein the instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the system to: receive an indication of a scan of the unique machine-readable code at the retrieval location; and responsive to receiving the indication of the scan, identify a retrieval station to be used to complete the retrieval, the identified retrieval station being selected from among a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations, wherein the identification is based upon the updated completion status.
X
15. (Currently Amended) One or more computer-readable media storing non- transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed via one or more processors, cause one or more computers to:
determine a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval;
subsequent to determining the completion status, obtain an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
update the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks;
cause an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individuals
identify, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval; and
complete the retrieval using the retrieval station.
20. One or more computer-readable media storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed via one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, via a software application executing on a mobile computing device of an individual, an indication of a selection of one or more prescription products to be retrieved by the individual at a retrieval location via a scanning of a unique machine-readable code, wherein retrieval of the one or more prescription products is associated with one or more prerequisite tasks required to be completed by the individual prior to the retrieval;
determine a completion status associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products, the completion status being based upon whether each of the one or more prerequisite tasks has been completed via the software application;
select, based upon the determined completion status, from among a plurality of retrieval stations located at the retrieval location, a particular retrieval station to be used for the retrieval of the one or more prescription products,
the plurality of retrieval stations from which the selection is made comprising (i) one or more standard retrieval stations to be used for the retrieval when the one or more prerequisite tasks have not been completed prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code, and (ii) one or more express retrieval stations to be used when the one or more prerequisite tasks have been completed via the software application prior to the scanning of the unique machine-readable code;
generate a notification associated with retrieval of the one or more prescription products, the notification (i) comprising a unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval, and (ii) identifying the particular retrieval station at the retrieval location; and
transmit, to the mobile computing device, the notification.
16. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the updated completion status indicates an eligibility to complete the retrieval via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
17. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the updated completion status indicates a lack of eligibility to complete the retrieval station via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations.
X
18. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the updated completion status indicates at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks required to make the retrieval eligible to be completed via the one or more express retrieval stations.
X
19. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the one or more computers to cause a unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual.
X
20. (Original) The one or more computer-readable media of claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed via the one or more processors, further cause the one or more computers to: receive an indication of a scan of the unique machine-readable code at the retrieval location; and responsive to receiving the indication of the scan, identify a retrieval station to be used to complete the retrieval, the identified retrieval station being selected from among a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations, wherein the identification is based upon the updated completion status.
X
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed toward a method (i.e., process), claims 8-14 are directed toward a system (i.e., machine), and claims 15-20 are directed toward a (non-transitory) computer readable media (i.e., manufacture). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations of a certain method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 1 recites: “A computer-implemented method associated with retrieval of one or more prescription products, the method being performed via one or more processors, and the method comprising: determining a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval; subsequent to determining the completion status, obtaining an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks; updating the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks; causing an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individual; identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval; and completing the retrieval using the retrieval station”.
The limitations of determining a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval; subsequent to determining the completion status, obtaining an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks; updating the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks; causing an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual; identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval; and completing the retrieval using the retrieval station, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions—in this case the aforementioned steps recite a process of determining, obtaining, updating, causing identifying, and completing, which is properly interpreted as a “personal behavior”), but instead automates the process via a computer model, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements”, and will be discussed in further detail below.
Further, the abstract idea of claims 8 and 15 are identical as the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, also falls under the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 include other limitations, as well as specific step of data to be processed, received, and applied, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea and do not add and additional elements, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 8, and 15. However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis. Each of the claims must be analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 2:
Claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception—for example, the recitation of “computers”, “processors”, “computing device”, “computing system”, and “non-transitory computer-readable media”, which amount to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see FIG. 1-2, [0006]-[0007, and [0022], of the present specification, and see further MPEP 2106.05(f);
Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, for example, “the method being performed via one or more processors”, “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to”, “One or more computer-readable media storing non- transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed via one or more processors, cause one or more computers to”, and “via a client computing device”, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of technology/the environment of computers, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
Merely acquiring information for further analysis by the system and the particular manner of acquisition is not described or shown to be important, for example, “obtain an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks”, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering because it merely functions tangentially to the main idea of the invention and serves only to bring in the data necessary for the inventions main analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 include other limitations, but as stated above, the limitations recited by these claims do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements (i.e., “computers”, “processors”, “computing device”, “computing system”, and “non-transitory computer-readable media”) that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, which even when reevaluated under the considerations of Step 2B of the analysis, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements (i.e., “obtain an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks”), add extra solution activity, which comprises limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in a particular field as demonstrated by:
Relevant court decisions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuyama et al. (US 20150190312 A1), hereinafter Yuyama, in view of McCauley et al. (US 20150294084 A1), hereinafter McCauley, and Mehdizadeh (US 20130151267- A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yuyama teaches a computer-implemented method associated with retrieval of one or more prescription products, the method being performed via one or more processors (Yuyama, Abstract, and [0002]-[0003]), and the method comprising: determining a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]); subsequent to determining the completion status, obtaining an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]); updating the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]); causing an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individual (Yuyama, [0164]: “the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25”, [0187]-[0189], [0196], and [0224]-[0225]).
Yuyama does not teach identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval.
However, McCauley teaches identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval (McCauley, [0005]-[0009]: “In addition, the method also includes displaying another notification including an indication of a prescription pickup location within the pharmacy based on whether the determination made using the prescription customer identification information and pharmacy identification information”, [0062]: “In an embodiment, if the prescription is ready, server 110 processes additional rules that determine which pickup location the prescription is routed to within the pharmacy. Further in accordance with this embodiment, once this determination is made, server 110 communicates with pharmacy computer system 112 to notify user 116 and sends one or more notifications to communication device 104 to notify the customer. In this way, system 100 coordinates prescription pickups and their locations between customers and pharmacists”, [0064]: “In some embodiments, server 110 optionally sends a prompt, which may be part of the payment prompt or a separate prompt, asking whether the customer has questions for the pharmacist. Server 110 can then appropriately route the customer to the proper location based on the selected payment method and whether the customer has a question. For example, a customer may wish to use an express payment method but could have a question for the pharmacist regarding the dosage, a number of remaining refills, etc. Since express pay counters might not be staffed with pharmacists (i.e., they may only be staffed with cashiers to verify the prescription and customer information) routing the customer to the express payment counter in such a case does not provide the customer with an adequate method to have these questions answered. In this way, system 100 can route the customer to a proper location for prescription pickup based on a payment method and a customer's particular needs” and [0065]: “In accordance with an embodiment, once the transaction is approved by server 110, server 110 sends a notification to communication device 104 indicating that the express payment authorization was successful. This notification could optionally include one or more images representative of the payment authorization, customer identification information, the prescription, the pharmacy location, etc. In an embodiment, the one or more images are implemented as barcodes, such as a barcode or a quick response (QR) code, for example. The barcode can then be displayed on communication device 104 and scanned by pharmacy staff when the customer picks up the prescription at the appropriate pickup location. In an embodiment, a user 116 can scan the barcode displayed on communication device 104 at pharmacy computer terminal 114. Upon scanning the barcode, pharmacy computer terminal 114 communicates with pharmacy computer system 112, which in turn can optionally communicate with server 110 (depending on whether server 110 or pharmacy computer system 112 contains this information) to verify that the customer's information, prescription information, and/or payment authorization information match the information previously generated when the payment was authorized. Once this information is verified by user 116, the prescription transaction can be completed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yuyama to incorporate the teachings of McCauley and account for keeping both the pharmacy staff and the customer informed of the proper pharmacy pickup location is important and presents several challenges (McCauley, Abstract and [0003]-[0005]).
Yuyama and McCauley does not teach completing the retrieval using the retrieval station.
However, Mehdizadeh teaches completing the retrieval using the retrieval station (Mehdizadeh, FIG. 4-5 and [0024]-[0029]: “FIG. 4 is an illustration of an electronic lockbox opened with a customer picking up the prescription medication; and FIG. 5 is an illustration of the electronic lockbox closed after the prescription medication has been picked up by the customer” and [0026]-[0029]: “A visual digital face recognition picture of the customer is taken to be utilized at the electronic lockbox location… Referring to FIG. 4, the electronic lockbox 200 has individual lockboxes numbered 1 through 20… Once the customer or patient has the registration card, the patient may use the registration card at the lockbox location of the pharmacy by sliding the card through the card reader and placing the patient's finger on the biometric reader to confirm the patient's identity and standing in front of the digital face recognition reader to further confirm the customer's identity. Referring to FIG. 4, the prescription refill 300 has previously been placed in a selected electronic lockbox and the customer is advised as to which lockbox number contains the customer's prescription refill… After retrieving the prescription refill, the customer closes the electronic lockbox as illustrated in FIG. 5 and this resets the system for further use of the same lockbox by another customer. The information about the purchase is sent to a central computer database of the pharmacy to monitor the refill and deduct the purchase price from the customer's credit card amount”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yuyama and McCauley to incorporate the teachings of Mehdizadeh and account for patient desiring to pick up a pre-approved prescription medication from a pharmacy after the pharmacy has closed or after the pharmacy department of a drugstore has closed and the pharmacist is no longer at the pharmacy (Mehdizadeh, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claims 2 and 9 Yuyama further teaches the individual associated with the retrieval of the one or more prescription products is a patient having a medical prescription corresponding to the one or more prescription products (Yuyama, FIG. 17-21, [0053], [0059]: “The cassette identification information is written to the RFID tag by the prescription control unit 1 at the time of an initial setting of the medicine dispensing apparatus 100 or the like. In this regard, another configuration having no specified cassettes 21 and having only the plurality of unspecified cassettes 22 may be considered as another embodiment”, and [0093]: “Powdered medicine to be supplied into the powdered medicine supplying unit 3 is measured in advance with a weighing device as a total amount of a prescription medicine to be prescribed to a patient”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16 Yuyama further teaches the updated completion status indicates an eligibility to complete the retrieval via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location (Yuyama, [0224]-[0225] and [0332]-[0337]), the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations (Yuyama, [0105]: “By utilizing the wireless communication in this manner, it is possible to freely bring the barcode reader 7 to the medicine dispensing apparatus 100 or the medicine shelf and carry out a work for supplying tablets into the unspecified cassettes 22 at an arbitrary location” and [0282]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17 Yuyama further teaches the updated completion status indicates a lack of eligibility to complete the retrieval station via one or more express retrieval stations at the retrieval location, the one or more express retrieval stations being selected from a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including the one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations (Yuyama, [0166]: “the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation”, [0245], [0273]: “the control portion 11 allows the monitor 13 to display an error indication and interrupts the medicine dispensing process in a case where there is a difference between the medicine information allocated to the unspecified cassette 22 and the contents of the allocation information 121”, and [0512]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18 Yuyama further teaches the updated completion status indicates at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks required to make the retrieval eligible to be completed via the one or more express retrieval stations (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19 Yuyama further teaches causing, via the one or more processors, a unique machine-readable code associated with the retrieval to be provided to a mobile computing device associated with the individual (Yuyama, [0009]-[0010], [0063], [0112], and [0197]).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20 Yuyama further teaches receiving an indication of a scan of the unique machine-readable code at the retrieval location (Yuyama, [0063], [0112], and [0197]); and responsive to receiving the indication of the scan, identifying a retrieval station to be used to complete the retrieval, the identified retrieval station being selected from among a plurality of retrieval stations at the retrieval location including one or more express retrieval stations and one or more standard retrieval stations, wherein the identification is based upon the updated completion status (Yuyama, [0166]: “the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation”, [0245], [0273]: “the control portion 11 allows the monitor 13 to display an error indication and interrupts the medicine dispensing process in a case where there is a difference between the medicine information allocated to the unspecified cassette 22 and the contents of the allocation information 121”, and [0512]).
Regarding claim 8 Yuyama teaches a computing system associated with retrieval of one or more prescription products (Yuyama, Abstract, and [0002]-[0003]), the system comprising: one or more processors (Yuyama, [0009]-[0010], [0063], [0112], and [0197]); and one or more memories storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to (Yuyama, [0009]-[00010], [0063], [0112], and [0197]): determine a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval; (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]); subsequent to determining the completion status, obtain an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]); update the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]); cause an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individual (Yuyama, [0164]: “the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25”, [0187]-[0189], [0196], and [0224]-[0225]).
Yuyama does not teach identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval.
However, McCauley teaches identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval (McCauley, [0005]-[0009]: “In addition, the method also includes displaying another notification including an indication of a prescription pickup location within the pharmacy based on whether the determination made using the prescription customer identification information and pharmacy identification information”, [0062]: “In an embodiment, if the prescription is ready, server 110 processes additional rules that determine which pickup location the prescription is routed to within the pharmacy. Further in accordance with this embodiment, once this determination is made, server 110 communicates with pharmacy computer system 112 to notify user 116 and sends one or more notifications to communication device 104 to notify the customer. In this way, system 100 coordinates prescription pickups and their locations between customers and pharmacists”, [0064]: “In some embodiments, server 110 optionally sends a prompt, which may be part of the payment prompt or a separate prompt, asking whether the customer has questions for the pharmacist. Server 110 can then appropriately route the customer to the proper location based on the selected payment method and whether the customer has a question. For example, a customer may wish to use an express payment method but could have a question for the pharmacist regarding the dosage, a number of remaining refills, etc. Since express pay counters might not be staffed with pharmacists (i.e., they may only be staffed with cashiers to verify the prescription and customer information) routing the customer to the express payment counter in such a case does not provide the customer with an adequate method to have these questions answered. In this way, system 100 can route the customer to a proper location for prescription pickup based on a payment method and a customer's particular needs” and [0065]: “In accordance with an embodiment, once the transaction is approved by server 110, server 110 sends a notification to communication device 104 indicating that the express payment authorization was successful. This notification could optionally include one or more images representative of the payment authorization, customer identification information, the prescription, the pharmacy location, etc. In an embodiment, the one or more images are implemented as barcodes, such as a barcode or a quick response (QR) code, for example. The barcode can then be displayed on communication device 104 and scanned by pharmacy staff when the customer picks up the prescription at the appropriate pickup location. In an embodiment, a user 116 can scan the barcode displayed on communication device 104 at pharmacy computer terminal 114. Upon scanning the barcode, pharmacy computer terminal 114 communicates with pharmacy computer system 112, which in turn can optionally communicate with server 110 (depending on whether server 110 or pharmacy computer system 112 contains this information) to verify that the customer's information, prescription information, and/or payment authorization information match the information previously generated when the payment was authorized. Once this information is verified by user 116, the prescription transaction can be completed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yuyama to incorporate the teachings of McCauley and account for keeping both the pharmacy staff and the customer informed of the proper pharmacy pickup location is important and presents several challenges (McCauley, Abstract and [0003]-[0005]).
Yuyama and McCauley does not teach completing the retrieval using the retrieval station.
However, Mehdizadeh teaches completing the retrieval using the retrieval station (Mehdizadeh, FIG. 4-5 and [0024]-[0029]: “FIG. 4 is an illustration of an electronic lockbox opened with a customer picking up the prescription medication; and FIG. 5 is an illustration of the electronic lockbox closed after the prescription medication has been picked up by the customer” and [0026]-[0029]: “A visual digital face recognition picture of the customer is taken to be utilized at the electronic lockbox location… Referring to FIG. 4, the electronic lockbox 200 has individual lockboxes numbered 1 through 20… Once the customer or patient has the registration card, the patient may use the registration card at the lockbox location of the pharmacy by sliding the card through the card reader and placing the patient's finger on the biometric reader to confirm the patient's identity and standing in front of the digital face recognition reader to further confirm the customer's identity. Referring to FIG. 4, the prescription refill 300 has previously been placed in a selected electronic lockbox and the customer is advised as to which lockbox number contains the customer's prescription refill… After retrieving the prescription refill, the customer closes the electronic lockbox as illustrated in FIG. 5 and this resets the system for further use of the same lockbox by another customer. The information about the purchase is sent to a central computer database of the pharmacy to monitor the refill and deduct the purchase price from the customer's credit card amount”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yuyama and McCauley to incorporate the teachings of Mehdizadeh and account for patient desiring to pick up a pre-approved prescription medication from a pharmacy after the pharmacy has closed or after the pharmacy department of a drugstore has closed and the pharmacist is no longer at the pharmacy (Mehdizadeh, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 15 Yuyama teaches one or more computer-readable media storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed via one or more processors (Yuyama, Abstract, [0002]-[0003], and [0009]-[0010]), cause one or more computers to: determine a completion status associated with a retrieval of one or more prescription products at a retrieval location, the completion status being based upon whether an individual associated with the retrieval has completed one or more prerequisite tasks prior to the retrieval (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]); subsequent to determining the completion status, obtain an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]); update the completion status to indicate the completion of the completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks (Yuyama, [0164]: “at a step S6, the control portion 11 determines whether or not a supplying complete operation, which means that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 is completed, is carried out to the operating portion 14… the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25. Then, the user mounts the unspecified cassette 22 to the tablet supplying unit 2 to carry out the supplying complete operation to the operating portion 14… the control portion 11 determines whether or not a plurality of supplying complete operations are carried out to all of the unspecified cassettes 22 respectively corresponding the plurality of medicine information”, [0166]: “Namely, the control portion 11 reports an error to the user when the supplying complete operation is carried out in a state where the removing of the unspecified cassette 22 is not detected by the mounting and removing detection sensor even once during a period from allocating the medicine information to the unspecified cassette 22 to carrying out the supplying complete operation. This reporting is carried out by, for example, reporting means such as the monitor 13 and a speaker (not shown in the drawings). Further, at the step S6, the control portion 11 may determine that the supplying of the tablets into the unspecified cassette 22 completes when the mounting and removing detection sensor detects the mounting and removing of the unspecified cassette 22 and then shift the process to the step S7”, [0183]: “the packaging operation completes at the step 14, the control portion 61 transmits a completion report of the packaging operation to the control portion 11 at a subsequent step S15”, and [0188]); and cause an indication of the updated completion status to be provided to the individual via a client computing device associated with the individual (Yuyama, [0164]: “the user supplies the tablets in a required amount into the unspecified cassette 22 with referring to a prescription sheet corresponding to the prescription data or the medicine information displayed on the display portion 25”, [0187]-[0189], [0196], and [0224]-[0225]).
Yuyama does not teach identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval.
However, McCauley teaches identifying, based upon the updated completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval (McCauley, [0005]-[0009]: “In addition, the method also includes displaying another notification including an indication of a prescription pickup location within the pharmacy based on whether the determination made using the prescription customer identification information and pharmacy identification information”, [0062]: “In an embodiment, if the prescription is ready, server 110 processes additional rules that determine which pickup location the prescription is routed to within the pharmacy. Further in accordance with this embodiment, once this determination is made, server 110 communicates with pharmacy computer system 112 to notify user 116 and sends one or more notifications to communication device 104 to notify the customer. In this way, system 100 coordinates prescription pickups and their locations between customers and pharmacists”, [0064]: “In some embodiments, server 110 optionally sends a prompt, which may be part of the payment prompt or a separate prompt, asking whether the customer has questions for the pharmacist. Server 110 can then appropriately route the customer to the proper location based on the selected payment method and whether the customer has a question. For example, a customer may wish to use an express payment method but could have a question for the pharmacist regarding the dosage, a number of remaining refills, etc. Since express pay counters might not be staffed with pharmacists (i.e., they may only be staffed with cashiers to verify the prescription and customer information) routing the customer to the express payment counter in such a case does not provide the customer with an adequate method to have these questions answered. In this way, system 100 can route the customer to a proper location for prescription pickup based on a payment method and a customer's particular needs” and [0065]: “In accordance with an embodiment, once the transaction is approved by server 110, server 110 sends a notification to communication device 104 indicating that the express payment authorization was successful. This notification could optionally include one or more images representative of the payment authorization, customer identification information, the prescription, the pharmacy location, etc. In an embodiment, the one or more images are implemented as barcodes, such as a barcode or a quick response (QR) code, for example. The barcode can then be displayed on communication device 104 and scanned by pharmacy staff when the customer picks up the prescription at the appropriate pickup location. In an embodiment, a user 116 can scan the barcode displayed on communication device 104 at pharmacy computer terminal 114. Upon scanning the barcode, pharmacy computer terminal 114 communicates with pharmacy computer system 112, which in turn can optionally communicate with server 110 (depending on whether server 110 or pharmacy computer system 112 contains this information) to verify that the customer's information, prescription information, and/or payment authorization information match the information previously generated when the payment was authorized. Once this information is verified by user 116, the prescription transaction can be completed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yuyama to incorporate the teachings of McCauley and account for keeping both the pharmacy staff and the customer informed of the proper pharmacy pickup location is important and presents several challenges (McCauley, Abstract and [0003]-[0005]).
Yuyama and McCauley does not teach completing the retrieval using the retrieval station.
However, Mehdizadeh teaches completing the retrieval using the retrieval station (Mehdizadeh, FIG. 4-5 and [0024]-[0029]: “FIG. 4 is an illustration of an electronic lockbox opened with a customer picking up the prescription medication; and FIG. 5 is an illustration of the electronic lockbox closed after the prescription medication has been picked up by the customer” and [0026]-[0029]: “A visual digital face recognition picture of the customer is taken to be utilized at the electronic lockbox location… Referring to FIG. 4, the electronic lockbox 200 has individual lockboxes numbered 1 through 20… Once the customer or patient has the registration card, the patient may use the registration card at the lockbox location of the pharmacy by sliding the card through the card reader and placing the patient's finger on the biometric reader to confirm the patient's identity and standing in front of the digital face recognition reader to further confirm the customer's identity. Referring to FIG. 4, the prescription refill 300 has previously been placed in a selected electronic lockbox and the customer is advised as to which lockbox number contains the customer's prescription refill… After retrieving the prescription refill, the customer closes the electronic lockbox as illustrated in FIG. 5 and this resets the system for further use of the same lockbox by another customer. The information about the purchase is sent to a central computer database of the pharmacy to monitor the refill and deduct the purchase price from the customer's credit card amount”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yuyama and McCauley to incorporate the teachings of Mehdizadeh and account for patient desiring to pick up a pre-approved prescription medication from a pharmacy after the pharmacy has closed or after the pharmacy department of a drugstore has closed and the pharmacist is no longer at the pharmacy (Mehdizadeh, Abstract and [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Non-Statutory Double Patenting, Applicant argues some typographical errors and that a Terminal Disclaimer will be filed. Examiner has updated the rejection because a terminal disclaimer has not yet been filed and to fix any typographical errors.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection, Applicant argues the amendments to claims do not recite an abstract idea because they do not fall within the certain method of organizing human activity subgroupings of “social activities, teaching, or following rules or instructions”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “identifying, based on the completion status, a retrieval station for completing the retrieval” and “complete the retrieval using the retrieval station” falls under following rules or instructions and has been a known method of picking of a prescription that predates the internet (e.g., a person calling to fill out their prescription and whether that prescription has been filled at a particular pharmacy). Additionally, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) recites “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping”. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues any alleged abstract idea is integrated into practical application. Applicant also argues the limitation of “obtaining an indication that the individual completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite tasks” was improperly identified as insignificant extra solution activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to point out the Applicant has not identified how the additional elements integrate that abstract idea (improvement to the technology, particular treatment, etc. as needed by MPEP 2106.04(d) (see further MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)”). Additionally, the “obtaining…” limitation is recited at a high level
Applicant argues the claims are similar to Example #46, Claim 3. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example #36, Claim 3 was eligible because the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application by improving inventory management techniques by avoiding the cumbersome use of RFID and GPS transmitters features. More specifically, the limitations of “(b) extracting characteristics from the acquired image sequence(s) of an item to form feature vectors, the characteristics comprising contour information and character information that is stored in the inventory record as classification data relating to the acquired image sequence(s); (c) recognizing and tracking the position of item in the image sequence as classification and location data by processing the feature vectors using the stored recognition model and adding the classification and location data to the inventory record; (d) determining a physical location of the item in the warehouse using the location data relating to the item in the image sequence(s); and (e) automatically updating the inventory record with the physical location of the item”, improve the system’s ability to identify and track objects across multiple cameras in a three‐dimensional space. Therefore, these limitations do not simply limit the abstract idea to the technological environment of image processing, but are instead meaningful limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a particular application that uses character and contour information from high resolution images to recognize items of inventory. The present claims are recited at a very high level and does not recite similar features of “a high‐resolution video camera array for acquiring at least one high resolution image sequence of each item”, “extracting characteristics from the acquired image sequence(s) of an item to form feature vectors, the characteristics comprising contour information and character information that is stored in the inventory record as classification data relating to the acquired image sequence(s)”, “recognizing and tracking the position of item in the image sequence as classification and location data by processing the feature vectors using the stored recognition model and adding the classification and location data to the inventory record”, and/or “determining a physical location of the item in the warehouse using the location data relating to the item in the image sequence(s)”.
Applicant argues the claims provides significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above the claims, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, which even when reevaluated under the considerations of Step 2B of the analysis, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05 states “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h))”. The claims are recited a high level such that the additional elements amount to merely link or are being applied to the abstract idea. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C 102 Rejection and the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHAEL SOJIN STONE whose telephone number is (571)272-8798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 7 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/R.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights