DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 18-39 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. Claims 18-37 are drawn to a system, claim 38 is drawn to a method, and claim 39 is drawn to a non-transitory media, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 18-39 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 18 recites a system for fulfilling prescriptions for patients from prescribers, the patients having a) electronic health records stored in b) computing entities that are connected to c) a data network, the d) system comprising d1) computer-readable memory and d2) a processor configured to receive the prescriptions over the data network and, for each prescription of the prescriptions:
1) identify a given one of the patients that is associated with the prescription, a given medication prescribed to the given one of the patients by the prescription, and a given one of the prescribers who prescribed the given medication to the given one of the patients;
2) obtain at least one of data included in a given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, data generated by e) drug interaction software, and data regarding insurance of the given one of the patients;
3) determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients;
4) if the prescription is not to be modified, instruct to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients;
5) if the prescription is to be modified, modify the prescription from the given medication to a different medication and instruct to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients; and
6) transmit a notification of fulfilment of the prescription over the data network.
Claim 18 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) identify a given one of the patients that is associated with the prescription, a given medication prescribed to the given one of the patients by the prescription, and a given one of the prescribers who prescribed the given medication to the given one of the patients, 2) obtain at least one of data included in a given one of the health records of the given one of the patients, data generated by an algorithm, and data regarding insurance of the given one of the patients, 3) determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the algorithm, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, 4) if the prescription is not to be modified, instruct to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients, 5) if the prescription is to be modified, modify the prescription from the given medication to a different medication and instruct to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients, and 6) transmit a notification of fulfilment of the prescription over the data network (a group of people). These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, people can determine if a prescription needs correction and correct the prescription if needed. Independent claims 38-39 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 19-37 include all of the limitations of claim 18, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 34 adds the additional step of “geolocate a drug store closest to a location associated with the given one of the patients such that, if the prescription is not to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients and, if the prescription is to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients” and claim 36 adds the additional step of “transmit a notification of availability of the prescription to a mobile communication device of the given one of the patients over the data network.” Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 19-33 and 35 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 19-37 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 18 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) electronic health records, b) computing entities, c) a data network, a d) system comprising d1) computer-readable memory and d2) a processor configured to receive the prescriptions over the data network, and e) drug interaction software to perform the claimed steps.
The a) electronic health records, b) computing entities, c) data network, d) system comprising d1) computer-readable memory and d2) a processor configured to receive the prescriptions over the data network, and e) drug interaction software in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification for a lack of description for anything than what may be considered as generic computing components for these elements, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) electronic health records, b) computing entities, c) a data network, a d) system comprising d1) computer-readable memory and d2) a processor configured to receive the prescriptions over the data network, and e) drug interaction software to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity), a general linking to a particular technological field, or mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
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., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention determines to modify a prescription and sends a notification utilizing a) electronic health records, b) computing entities, c) a data network, a d) system comprising d1) computer-readable memory and d2) a processor configured to receive the prescriptions over the data network, and e) drug interaction software, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 18-39 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18-23 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2002/0169635 to Shillingburg in view of U.S. 2011/0246218 to Starko.
As per claim 18, Shillingburg teaches a system for fulfilling prescriptions for patients from prescribers, the patients having electronic health records stored in computing entities that are connected to a data network, the system comprising computer-readable memory and a processor configured to receive the prescriptions over the data network (see: paragraph [0061] where there is a processor and memory for receiving previous recommendation information which may be prescription information (see: paragraphs [0128] and [0153])) and, for each prescription of the prescriptions:
--identify a given one of the patients that is associated with the prescription, (see: paragraph [0128] where there is identification of a patient) a given medication prescribed to the given one of the patients by the prescription, (see: paragraph [0128] where there is a previous recommendation and paragraph [0153] where the recommendations can be prescriptions) and a given one of the prescribers who prescribed the given medication to the given one of the patients; (see: paragraph [0096] where there is identification of the prescriber of the prescription)
--obtain at least one of data included in a given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, (see: paragraphs [0118] and [0128] where there is obtaining of previous information of the patient via an EMR) data generated by drug interaction software, (see: paragraph [0083] where there is drug interaction information generated by a software) and data regarding insurance of the given one of the patients; (see: paragraph [0128] where there is insurance information)
--determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients; (see: paragraph [0128] where a determination is being made as whether to modify the previous recommendation or not. These recommendations can be prescriptions as explained in paragraph [0153]. Previous health information, current insurance information, and drug interaction information are all taken into account)
--if the prescription is not to be modified; (see: paragraphs [0128] and [0153] where there is a potential modification or not of a previous recommendation, where the recommendations can be prescriptions)
--if the prescription is to be modified, modify the prescription from the given medication to a different medication; (see: paragraphs [0128] and [0153] where there is a potential modification or not of a previous recommendation, where the recommendations can be prescriptions) and
Shillingburg may not further, specifically teach:
1) --instruct to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients;
2) --instruct to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients; and
3) --transmit a notification of fulfilment of the prescription over the data network.
Starko teaches:
1) --instruct to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients; (see: claim 17 where there is instruction to deliver a prescription)
2) --instruct to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients; (see: claim 17 where there is instruction to deliver a prescription) and
3) --transmit a notification of fulfilment of the prescription over the data network (see: paragraph [0010] where there is transmission of fulfilment over a network).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) instruct to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients, 2) instruct to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients, and 3) transmit a notification of fulfilment of the prescription over the data network as taught by Starko in the system as taught by Shillingburg with the motivation(s) of providing the medical products to the patient (see: paragraph [0034] of Starko) for the purposes of addressing their affliction.
As per claim 19, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. Shillingburg further teaches wherein the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients comprises the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients (see: paragraphs [0118] and [0128] where there is obtaining of previous information of the patient via an EMR).
As per claim 20, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 19, see discussion of claim 19. Shillingburg further teaches wherein the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients comprises the data generated by the drug interaction software (see: paragraph [0083] where there is drug interaction information generated by a software).
As per claim 21, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 19, see discussion of claim 19. Shillingburg further teaches wherein the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients comprises the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients (see: paragraph [0128] where there is insurance information).
As per claim 22, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. Shillingburg further teaches wherein the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients comprises the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients (see: paragraphs [0118] and [0128] where there is obtaining of previous information of the patient via an EMR).
As per claim 23, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. Shillingburg further teaches wherein the notification of fulfillment of the prescription indicates a modification of the prescription to the different medication if the prescription is modified (see: paragraphs [0128] and [0153] where there is a potential modification or not of a previous recommendation, where the recommendations can be prescriptions. This would be considered as a notification of a modification as well).
As per claim 38, claim 38 is similar to claim 18 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 18 using the Shillingburg and Starko references in combination.
As per claim 39, claim 39 is similar to claim 18 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 18 using the Shillingburg and Starko references in combination.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2002/0169635 to Shillingburg in view of U.S. 2011/0246218 to Starko as applied to claim 18, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,538,777 to Kaye et al.
As per claim 24, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the computing entities are managed by different organizations.
Kaye et al. teaches:
--wherein the computing entities are managed by different organizations (see: column 9, lines 43-51 where there are entities managed by different organizations).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the computing entities are managed by different organizations as taught by Kaye et al. in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of providing a patient’s medical history (see: column 1, lines 29-34 of Kaye et al.).
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2002/0169635 to Shillingburg in view of U.S. 2011/0246218 to Starko as applied to claim 18, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0358117 to Neagle.
As per claim 25, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teaches wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a substitution of the given medication is allowed.
Neagle teaches:
--wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a substitution of the given medication is allowed (see: paragraph [0050] where there is a determination of whether a substitute is allowed).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a substitution of the given medication is allowed as taught by Neagle in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of improving patient care (see: paragraph [0004] of Neagle).
As per claim 26, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teaches wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a generic is substitutable for the given medication.
Neagle teaches:
--wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a generic is substitutable for the given medication (see: paragraph [0050] where there is a determination of whether a generic substitute is suitable).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a generic is substitutable for the given medication as taught by Neagle in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of improving patient care (see: paragraph [0004] of Neagle).
As per claim 27, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teaches wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether the given medication interacts with another drug prescribed to the given one of the patients.
Neagle teaches:
--wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether the given medication interacts with another drug prescribed to the given one of the patients (see: paragraphs [0050] and [0051] where there is a determination of whether a medication interacts with another).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether the given medication interacts with another drug prescribed to the given one of the patients as taught by Neagle in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of improving patient care (see: paragraph [0004] of Neagle).
As per claim 28, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teaches wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a dosage of the given medication is wrong.
Neagle teaches:
--wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a dosage of the given medication is wrong (see: paragraphs [0050] and [0051] where there is a determination of whether a medication interacts with another).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a dosage of the given medication is wrong as taught by Neagle in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of improving patient care (see: paragraph [0004] of Neagle).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2002/0169635 to Shillingburg in view of U.S. 2011/0246218 to Starko as applied to claim 18, and further in view of U.S. 2007/0167853 to Melker et al.
As per claim 29, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether the given one of the patients is a fast or slow metabolizer of the given medication.
Melker et al. teaches:
--wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether the given one of the patients is a fast or slow metabolizer of the given medication (see: paragraphs [0155] and [0180] where there is a determination of a rate of metabolism of a drug for an individual).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether the given one of the patients is a fast or slow metabolizer of the given medication as taught by Melker et al. in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of improving drug administration (see: paragraph [0028] of Melker et al.).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2002/0169635 to Shillingburg in view of U.S. 2011/0246218 to Starko as applied to claim 18, and further in view of U.S. 2007/0167853 to Shiloh.
As per claim 30, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a diet of the given one of the patients interacts with the given medication.
Shiloh teaches:
--wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a diet of the given one of the patients interacts with the given medication (see: claim 21 where there is a determination of if there is an interaction with medication and a diet).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a diet of the given one of the patients interacts with the given medication as taught by Shiloh in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of providing improved health care (see: paragraph [0002] of Shiloh).
As per claim 31, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a natural supplement taken by the given one of the patients interacts with the given medication.
Shiloh teaches:
--wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a natural supplement taken by the given one of the patients interacts with the given medication (see: claim 21 where there is a determination of if there is an interaction with medication and a diet. Also see: paragraph [0108] where there are food supplements).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a natural supplement taken by the given one of the patients interacts with the given medication as taught by Shiloh in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of providing improved health care (see: paragraph [0002] of Shiloh).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2002/0169635 to Shillingburg in view of U.S. 2011/0246218 to Starko as applied to claim 18, and further in view of U.S. 2016/0335412 to Tucker et al.
As per claim 32, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a gut microbia of the given one of the patients interacts with the given medication.
Tucker et al. teaches:
--wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a gut microbia of the given one of the patients interacts with the given medication (see: paragraph [0029] where there are steps which determine if there is an interaction between the medication and the gut biome).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a gut microbia of the given one of the patients interacts with the given medication as taught by Tucker et al. in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of helping reduce the follow-up health care costs (see: paragraph [0026] of Tucker et al.).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2002/0169635 to Shillingburg in view of U.S. 2011/0246218 to Starko as applied to claim 18, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,380 to Davis Moore.
As per claim 33, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a metabolic substrate necessary for the given medication is deficient in the given one of the patients.
Davis Moore teaches:
--wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a metabolic substrate necessary for the given medication is deficient in the given one of the patients (see: column 7, lines 1-10 where there is a determination if a metabolic substrate is necessary for the given medication is deficient).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein, to determine whether to modify the prescription based on the at least one of the data included in the given one of the electronic health records of the given one of the patients, the data generated by the drug interaction software, and the data regarding the insurance of the given one of the patients, the processor is configured to determine whether a metabolic substrate necessary for the given medication is deficient in the given one of the patients as taught by Davis Moore in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of improving intervention results (see: column 2, lines 48-67 of Davis Moore).
Claims 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2002/0169635 to Shillingburg in view of U.S. 2011/0246218 to Starko as applied to claim 18, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,626,530 to Tran et al.
As per claim 34, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to geolocate a drug store closest to a location associated with the given one of the patients such that, if the prescription is not to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients and, if the prescription is to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients.
Tran et al. teaches:
--wherein the processor is configured to geolocate a drug store closest to a location associated with the given one of the patients such that, if the prescription is not to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients and, if the prescription is to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients (see: column 20, lines 1-18 where there is locating of the closest store to fulfill the prescription).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the processor is configured to geolocate a drug store closest to a location associated with the given one of the patients such that, if the prescription is not to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients and, if the prescription is to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients as taught by Tran et al. in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of refilling prescriptions (see: column 1, lines 14-17 of Tran et al.).
As per claim 35, Shillingburg, Starko, and Tran et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 34, see discussion of claim 34. Tran et al. further teaches wherein the location associated with the given one of the patients is one of a residential address of the given one of the patients and a work address of the given one of the patients (see: column 20, lines 1-18 where there is locating of the closest store to fulfill the prescription. The location can be that of the home address if the device is at home, or a work address if at work).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 34, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 36, Shillingburg and Starko in combination teaches the system of claim 18, see discussion of claim 18. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to transmit a notification of availability of the prescription to a mobile communication device of the given one of the patients over the data network.
Tran et al. teaches:
--wherein the processor is configured to geolocate a drug store closest to a location associated with the given one of the patients such that, if the prescription is not to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients and, if the prescription is to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients (see: column 20, lines 1-18 where there is locating of the closest store to fulfill the prescription).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the processor is configured to geolocate a drug store closest to a location associated with the given one of the patients such that, if the prescription is not to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the given medication and deliver the given medication to the given one of the patients and, if the prescription is to be modified, the drug store is instructed to prepare the different medication and deliver the different medication to the given one of the patients as taught by Tran et al. in the system as taught by Shillingburg and Starko in combination with the motivation(s) of refilling prescriptions (see: column 1, lines 14-17 of Tran et al.).
As per claim 37, Shillingburg, Starko, and Tran et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 36, see discussion of claim 36. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the notification of the availability of the prescription does not specify what is prescribed (see: column 11, lines 42-51 where there is a notification of availability. Also see: column 14, lines 15-32 where there is no specification of what is available).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 36, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684