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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 08/21/2026 for application 18/956195.
Claims 1-2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 23 have been amended.
Claims 24-27 have been added new.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 12-13, 16, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20-27 and are currently pending and have been examined.
Detailed Action
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 1-2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-27 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.
Claims1-2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-27 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite identifying a first pattern associated with a set of dispensing events; identifying one or more rules related to the first pattern associated with the set of dispensing events; determining that the set of dispensing events constitute a drug misappropriation event; and modifying at least one of the rules related to the first pattern based on feedback which are directed to a mental process involving observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including an analytic system and a graphical interface which are additional element that is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional elements of receiving drug dispensing data; displaying an alert; and receiving feedback which are insignificant pre-solution data gathering or insignificant post solution activity output.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Hence, the 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. Accordingly, 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 92, where “In an example, distributed analytics system 1502 can include an analytics and extract, transform, and load (ETL) component 1508 (which may be similar to and/or include at least a portion of data analyzing component 128) that receives data from one or more filter components 1510 (which may also be similar to and/or include at least a portion of data analyzing component 128).”
Paragraph 32, where “As used herein, the terms “element,” “module,” “component,” and “system” may refer to a computer-related entity, either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution. For example, a module may be, but is not limited to being, a machine-executable process running on a processor, a processor, an object, a thread of execution, a machine-executable program, and/or a computer. By way of illustration, both a process running on a server and the server may be a module or a component. One or more modules or components may reside within a process and/or thread of execution. In some implementations, a module may be localized on one computer and/or distributed among two or more computers.”
Paragraph 9-10, where “The at least one processor can be configured to receive data related to a plurality of access events, by one or more employees, of electronic patient data, determine a set of access events of the plurality of access events constitute, by the one or more employees, possible breach of the electronic patient data, and provide an alert related to the set of access events based on determining that the set of access events constitute possible breach of the electronic patient data. The apparatus also includes a memory coupled to the at least one processor.
[0010]In yet another aspect, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable code for presenting electronic patient data accessing information is provided. The code includes code for receiving data related to a plurality of access events, by one or more employees, of electronic patient data, determining a set of access events of the plurality of access events constitute, by the one or more employees, possible breach of the electronic patient data, and providing an alert related to the set of access events based on determining that the set of access events constitute possible breach of the electronic patient data.”
The claims recite the additional element of receiving drug dispensing data; displaying an alert; and receiving feedback which are insignificant pre-solution data gathering or insignificant post solution activity output which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering or displaying. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20-27 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The Applicant argues that the claims recite patent eligible subject matter. The Claims are not directed to a judicial exception. The Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to a computer implemented method for processing dispensing data. The claimed method is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in electronic analytics and monitoring of drug dispensing data and events. Applicant submits that the human mind, even with aid of a pen and paper is not equipped to cause a display …. An interactive graphical alert in a first window of a graphical user interface… and etc. The Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claims recite a specific computer implemented process for
processing drug dispensing data that includes identifying a first pattern associated with a set of dispensing events, identifying one or more rules, determining that the set of
dispensing events constitute a drug misappropriation event…and automatically modifying at least one or more rules. The claims reflect a significant improvement over
previous drug dispensing data processing systems, by enabling misappropriation detection across healthcare provider systems that may employ different workflows.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea since the claims are directed to identifying, analyzing rules, and determining whether the events constitute a drug misappropriation. These steps are directed towards evaluations and/or observations that can be performed in a human mind. For Example, a person can review dispensing information and could determine if a wasting event occurs. The GUI is not categorized under a mental process, but instead it is evaluated under step 2A wherein the GUI is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, modifying rules is not a technological improvement. The claims do not teach the steps of evaluating different workflows across different healthcare environments. Therefore, the claims do not reflect a significant improvement over previous drug dispensing data processing systems.
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 MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights