DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 2 June 2026.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 12, and 19 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 18, and 20 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that Applicant’s amendments filed 2 June 2026 identify claim 8 as “original” but contain amendments to claim 8. The amendments to claim 8 have been entered and considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 April 2026 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, which is representative of claim(s) 18 and 20, recites: a method for managing medical product usage at a healthcare unit, comprising:
receiving,
capturing, at a point of care,
determining,
generating,
providing,
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of providing a medical product guidance recommendations based on an image of the product, availability, and compliance. This concept describes a mental process that a healthcare assistant should follow to assist a healthcare professional with medical product usage similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Alternatively, this concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, and “judgement” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, this concept as claimed does not require a scale of data beyond the mental faculties of a human being and the operations of the abstract idea can be practically performed in the human mind. As such, these limitations are determined to set forth a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of an electronic user device and a server. Claim 18 recites the additional element of a computer system, comprising an electronic user device and a server. Claim 20 recites the additional element of one or more computer-readable storage medium. These additional elements are all recited at an extremely high level of generality and may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite an additional element of capturing an image using an image capture device associated with the electronic user device. Capturing an image with an image capture device does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim and instead amounts to necessary data gathering. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Alternatively, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of computing devices with imaging devices and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements of computing devices and an image capture device associated with the computing devices does not reflect any technical improvement, does not require a particular machine, does not effect a transformation of an article, and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Instead, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of computing devices with imaging devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of capturing an image using an image capture device associated with the electronic user device. Kim et al. (US 2004/0132491 A1) demonstrates (a conventional mobile communication terminal with a camera comprising an image capture device [0008]) that image capture devices associated with user devices were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. This further indicates this additional element is mere extra-solution activity. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements of computing devices and an image capture device associated with the computing devices does not reflect any technical improvement, does not require a particular machine, does not effect a transformation of an article, and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Instead, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of computing devices with imaging devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4-8, 10, 11, and 13-17 further describe the abstract idea, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract ideas into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. Therefore the claims continue to be directed to abstract ideas. Further, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstracts for the same reasons indicated above. Claim 2 recites the additional element of a graphical user interface. This additional element may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the narrowed abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. When considered in combination with the previously identified additional elements, the combination of additional elements only generally link the narrowed abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices with imaging devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. Further, when considered at Step 2B, the additional element, individually and in combination with the prior identified additional elements, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, for the same reasons as indicated above. Claim 4 recites the additional element of an inventory management system. This additional element may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. This additional element may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the narrowed abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. When considered in combination with the previously identified additional elements, the combination of additional elements only generally link the narrowed abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices with imaging devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. Further, when considered at Step 2B, the additional element, individually and in combination with the prior identified additional elements, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, for the same reasons as indicated above. Claim 10 recites the additional element of storing information in a database. This additional element may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. This additional element may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the narrowed abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. When considered in combination with the previously identified additional elements, the combination of additional elements only generally link the narrowed abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices with imaging devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. Further, when considered at Step 2B, the additional element, individually and in combination with the prior identified additional elements, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, for the same reasons as indicated above. Claim 13 recites the additional element of a training module. This additional element may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. This additional element may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the narrowed abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. When considered in combination with the previously identified additional elements, the combination of additional elements only generally link the narrowed abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices with imaging devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. Further, when considered at Step 2B, the additional element, individually and in combination with the prior identified additional elements, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, for the same reasons as indicated above. Because the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claim 20: Applicant has amended claim 20 to recite “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the software per se 101 rejection. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-20:
The Office’s characterization of the claims as reciting a mental process is inconsistent with the actual scope of the amended claims and with USPTO’s own guidance. … the Deputy Commissioner expressly explains that the mental grouping does not apply to claim limitations that “cannot practically be performed in the human mind”… Server-side image analysis of a physical product applied to a patient’s body to assess application parameters is not an operation the human mind is equipped to perform. … The combination of server-side image analysis, multi-source data integration, and temporal trend-based adaptation of recommendations is not an operation that the human mind is equipped to perform.
The amended claims do not recite rules or instructions for how a human should behave or interact with another person. Rather, the amended claims recite a technical system.
The amended claims do not prescribe how a healthcare professional should behave; they recite a computing system that captures image data at a point of care, process that image data to determine a compliance level, tracks compliance over time, and outputs an adaptive recommendation to the professional. The healthcare professional is the recipient of the system’s output, not the subject of behavior management.
The particular improvement is the ability to proactively manage medical product usage by simultaneously addressing two distinct and critical aspects: (1) verifying that a selected medical product has been correctly applied to a patient, and (2) ensuring the continued accessibility of that product.
Existing systems in the field focus on product selection … While such systems improve the decision of which product to use, they do not address the distinct problem of whether a product, once selected and applied, is being correctly used in relation to the patient. … Rather than selecting a product, the claims recite a system that captures an image of a product as applied to a patient, analyzes that image to evaluate application correctness, combines that evaluation with accessibility data to generate a targeted recommendation, and adapts the recommendation over time based on tracked compliance trends. … in Summary, the clear difference is this: the conventional approach focuses on selecting which product to apply … the Amended claims, by contrast … generates an adaptive recommendation specifically directed to corrective or accessibility-related actions.
Here, the improvement, that is, the ability to evaluate product application correctness and generate targeted corrective or accessibility-related recommendations, is expressly reflected in the claim language quoted above.
The significance of Desjardins has been underscored by the USPTO’s issuance on December 5, 2025 of an advance notice of change to the MPEP formally incorporating Desjardins into the Office’s subject matter eligibility framework … to cite Desjardins as an example of a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application because the claim reflects an improvement identified in the specification.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) unambiguously states that “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.“ The MPEP further references Mortgage Grader which it describes as concluding “that concept of ‘anonymous loan shopping’ recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be ‘performed by humans without a computer’”. The present claims similar set forth a concept which can be practically performed in the human mind.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) states “examples of managing personal behavior recited in a claim include: … filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility.” In Bascom the court evaluated claim 1 which recited “A content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network by individual controlled access network accounts, said filtering system comprising: a local client computer generating network access requests… .” As such, the recitation of a “technical system” plainly does not exclude a claim from setting forth a concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
The current and prior rejection specifically indicate that the claims set forth a concept that a healthcare assistant should follow. The fact that there is ultimately another human recipient of the concept’s output does not render the claim eligible. Note that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) indicates that Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank involved “methods comprising storing user selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device”, thus describing methods where a concept within the subgrouping outputs information to a human recipient.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not regard the asserted improvement to be a technical improvement. A human being applied to the task could achieve the asserted improvement without any technology, and per MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show a technical improvement.
Applicant’s argument contrasting the claimed invention with “selecting a product” is undermine by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed recommendation for action encompassing selecting a subsequent product for based on an accessibility of the currently selected medical product.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.” Here the disclosure does not provide technical details of how the implement the asserted improvement. As such, the asserted improvement again would not be considered as technical improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Ex parte Desjardins memo notes that “the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems.” The present claims are in no way analogous to those of Desjardins and Applicant does not appear to advance the argument that the improvement is to the computer itself.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 103 Rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16-20: Claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter from previously-presented dependent claim 9. Applicant notes that previously-presented dependent claim 9 was not rejected under 35 USC 103.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified rejection.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 2 March 2026.
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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-08-04
Prosecution Insights