DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 2/26/25, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system and method for coordinating a purchase which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions, including sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-20 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claims 1 and 18, the claims recite an abstract idea of: coordinating a purchase. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A computer-based method for coordinating a purchase, the method comprising: receiving, at an exchange platform, an indication that a buyer wishes to purchase a prescription-based product from a primary seller; evaluating a hypothetical sale of the prescription-based product from the primary seller; upon determining that the hypothetical sale of the prescription-based product from the primary seller would not be profitable, evaluating an equivalent hypothetical sale from at least one secondary seller; and upon determining that the equivalent hypothetical sale from a selected seller of the at least one secondary seller would be profitable, initiating a transfer of the indication from the primary seller to the selected seller. Independent claim 18 recites similar steps that recite the abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 18, as drafted, are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, since they recite commercial or legal interactions, including sales activities or behaviors. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “an exchange platform; a system comprising a server, a primary seller interface device, and a secondary seller interface device”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-17, 19, and 20 recite similar limitations as independent claims 1 and 18; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements including generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “the exchange platform, communication pathways, the server, the primary seller interface device, the secondary seller interface device, a database, and a computer system”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1 and 18 only recite the additional elements of “an exchange platform; a system comprising a server, a primary seller interface device, and a secondary seller interface device”. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims 1 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-17, 19, and 20, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “the exchange platform, communication pathways, the server, the primary seller interface device, the secondary seller interface device, a database, and a computer system”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claims 1 and 18 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 recited additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-17, 19, and 20 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 the dependent claims to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
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.
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 1-8, 10, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0049733 to Crane et al. (hereinafter referred to as Crane), in view of US 2021/0210185 to Aldred et al. (hereinafter referred to as Aldred).
In regards to claim 1, Crane discloses a computer-based method for coordinating a purchase (computer system that dynamically tailors a prescription transaction, para. 0007), the method comprising: receiving, at an exchange platform (computer system receives, at the interface circuit, pharmacy information associated with the second computer system that specifies, for a potential prescription transaction for a prescription, a cost for an individual, an overhead associated with an entity when the potential prescription transaction is facilitated by the entity, and a residual amount, para. 0033), an indication that a buyer wishes to purchase a prescription-based product from a primary seller (individual is filling a prescription or conducting a prescription transaction at or with a pharmacy, para. 0046); evaluating a hypothetical sale of the prescription-based product from the primary seller (pharmacy information may specify a potential prescription cost corresponding to a drug ingredient in the prescription and potential revenue for a pharmacy for the potential prescription transaction, para. 0009; one or more prescription-transaction constraints may include a minimum potential revenue of the pharmacy, para. 0020); upon determining that the hypothetical sale of the prescription-based product from the primary seller would not be profitable (computer system 130 may assess whether there is a prescription transaction advantage based at least in part on the overhead and a second overhead associated with a second entity when a second potential prescription transaction for the prescription is facilitated by the second entity, para. 0048), evaluating an equivalent hypothetical sale (computer system 130 may provide comparison information associated with the second potential prescription transaction to computer system 112, where the comparison information specifies the second cost and the second residual amount, para. 0050) from at least one secondary seller (there may be the prescription-transaction advantage when the overhead is greater than the second overhead (and, thus, when the second entity is able to or willing to accept a smaller amount in the second potential prescription transaction than the entity is able to or willing to accept in the potential prescription transaction), para. 0048); and upon determining that the equivalent hypothetical sale from a selected seller of the at least one secondary seller would be profitable (dynamic optimization may dynamically price the second potential prescription transaction based at least in part on the revenue of the pharmacy and a cost to the individual, para. 0049), initiating a transfer of the indication (When the second potential prescription transaction is less costly for the individual and/or offers more revenue for the pharmacy, the individual or the staff member in the pharmacy may select the potential prescription transaction or the second potential prescription transaction, para. 0051), but fails to disclose initiating a transfer from the primary seller to the selected seller.
Aldred, in the related field of systems and methods for automated processing of medical prescriptions, teaches initiating a transfer from the primary seller to the selected seller (may be determined that the selected pharmacy for fulfillment (e.g., selected by the patient or the prescriber) is no longer ideal, and the network 100 or the network 700 may transfer the medical prescription to a second pharmacy according to the method 400, para. 0077). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to transmit a prescription from one pharmacy to another as taught by the system of Aldred. The motivation for doing so would have been where authorization for the second pharmacy exists, the medical prescription may be transmitted 420 to the second pharmacy via a pharmacy module (Aldred, para. 0055).
In regards to claim 2, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the indication that a buyer wishes to purchase the prescription-based product is a prescription from a health care provider indicating a patient as the buyer (individual is filling a prescription or conducting a prescription transaction at or with a pharmacy, para. 0046).
In regards to claim 3, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 2 wherein the prescription is initially received at the exchange platform from the primary seller (second computer system may be associated with the pharmacy that has a contract with the second entity for a service that provides the comparison information, para. 0059), but fails to disclose wherein the initiation of the transfer of the indication is a transfer of the prescription from the primary seller to the selected seller.
Aldred, in the related field of systems and methods for automated processing of medical prescriptions, teaches wherein the initiation of the transfer of the indication is a transfer of the prescription from the primary seller to the selected seller (may be determined that the selected pharmacy for fulfillment (e.g., selected by the patient or the prescriber) is no longer ideal, and the network 100 or the network 700 may transfer the medical prescription to a second pharmacy according to the method 400, para. 0077). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to transmit a prescription from one pharmacy to another as taught by the system of Aldred. The motivation for doing so would have been where authorization for the second pharmacy exists, the medical prescription may be transmitted 420 to the second pharmacy via a pharmacy module (Aldred, para. 0055).
In regards to claim 4, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the prescription is initially received from the health care provider and indicates the primary seller as a preferred pharmacy (prescription techniques may be performed when an individual is filling a prescription or conducting a prescription transaction at or with a pharmacy, para. 0046).
In regards to claim 5, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the evaluation of the hypothetical sale from the primary seller (pharmacy information may specify a potential prescription cost corresponding to a drug ingredient in the prescription and potential revenue for a pharmacy for the potential prescription transaction, para. 0009; one or more prescription-transaction constraints may include a minimum potential revenue of the pharmacy, para. 0020) is based at least partially on data retrieved from or associated with the primary seller following the receipt of the indication at the exchange platform (During operation, the computer system may receive pharmacy information (operation 210) associated with the second computer system, where the pharmacy information specifies, for a potential prescription transaction for a prescription, a cost for an individual, an overhead associated with an entity when the potential prescription transaction is facilitated by the entity, and a residual amount, para. 0055), and wherein the evaluation of the equivalent hypothetical sale from the selected seller is based on data retrieved from or associated with the selected seller (computer system may assess whether there is a prescription-transaction advantage (operation 212) based at least in part on the overhead and a second overhead associated with a second entity when a second potential prescription transaction for the prescription is facilitated by the second entity, para. 0057) following the determination that the hypothetical sale from the primary seller would not be profitable (pharmacy information may specify a potential prescription cost corresponding to a drug ingredient in the prescription and potential revenue for a pharmacy for the potential prescription transaction, para. 0009; one or more prescription-transaction constraints may include a minimum potential revenue of the pharmacy, para. 0020).
In regards to claim 6, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 5 and further discloses wherein the data retrieved from or associated with the primary seller (second computer system may be associated with the pharmacy which may have a contract with the second entity for a service that provides the comparison information, para. 0059) is not accessible by the selected seller (the cost and the overhead may be predefined and may be associated with a PBM that manages prescription benefits, para. 0056) and the data retrieved from or associated with the selected seller (electronic device 110-3 may display the comparison information in a user interface that includes a comparison of the potential prescription transaction and the second potential prescription transaction, and the second comparison information includes, e.g., the cost, the second code, the residual amount and the second residual amount, para. 0050) is not accessible by the primary seller (the cost and the overhead may be predefined and may be associated with a PBM that manages prescription benefits, para. 0056).
In regards to claim 7, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 5 further comprising maintaining communication pathways with each of the primary seller and the selected seller such that the retrieval of data occurs in real time (by dynamically optimizing or tailoring the second prescription transaction and providing the comparison information, the prescription techniques may offer individuals and/or the pharmacies transparent, real-time information that facilitates improved decision-making as to how best to conduct prescription transactions that are in their best interests, para. 0053).
In regards to claim 8, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 5 wherein the data retrieved from the primary seller indicates product purchase data (pharmacy information may specify a potential prescription cost corresponding to a drug ingredient in the prescription and potential revenue for a pharmacy for the potential prescription transaction, para. 0056) and payer reimbursement data unique to the primary seller and wherein the data retrieved from the selected seller indicates product purchase data and payer reimbursement data unique to the selected seller (In FIG. 7, the potential prescription transaction associated with the current health insurance plan has a large processor fee, administration fee and/or claw back of $14.81, para. 0086) and different than that of the first seller (In the example shown in FIG. 6, the second potential prescription transaction has a lower cost for the individual and increased revenue for the pharmacy relative to the potential prescription transaction associated with the current health-insurance plan of the individual, para. 0085).
In regards to claim 10, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising transmitting a notice to the buyer or to the primary seller that the indication is being processed by the selected seller (When electronic device receives user-interface activity information (UIAI) 440 indicating acceptance of the second potential prescription transaction, electronic device 110-3 may provide a notification 442 to computer system 112, para. 0079).
In regards to claim 16, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the selected seller is a mail order pharmacy (prescription techniques may be used during an online prescription transaction, e.g., when the individual is filling their prescription with the pharmacy virtually via networks 120 and/or 122, para. 0054), but fails to disclose such that upon confirming a transfer of the indication from the primary seller to the selected seller, the method further comprises initiating an order corresponding to the indication.
Aldred, in the related field of systems and methods for automated processing of medical prescriptions, teaches such that upon confirming a transfer of the indication from the primary seller to the selected seller (may be determined that the selected pharmacy for fulfillment (e.g., selected by the patient or the prescriber) is no longer ideal, and the network 100 or the network 700 may transfer the medical prescription to a second pharmacy according to the method 400, para. 0077) the method further comprises initiating an order corresponding to the indication (the medical prescription is transmitted 325 to the selected pharmacy for fulfillment via a pharmacy module (e.g., pharmacy module 120 as described herein), para. 0052). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to transmit a prescription from one pharmacy to another as taught by the system of Aldred. The motivation for doing so would have been where authorization for the second pharmacy exists, the medical prescription may be transmitted 420 to the second pharmacy via a pharmacy module (Aldred, para. 0055).
In regards to claim 17, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the determination that the sale of the prescription-based product from the primary seller would not be profitable is based on net profit compared to a minimal threshold profit (pharmacy information may specify a potential prescription cost corresponding to a drug ingredient in the prescription and potential revenue for a pharmacy for the potential prescription transaction, para. 0009; one or more prescription-transaction constraints may include a minimum potential revenue of the pharmacy, para. 0020).
In regards to claim 18, Crane discloses a system for coordinating a purchase (computer system that dynamically tailors a prescription transaction, para. 0007), the system comprising: a server (computer system which may include one or more computers, servers or electronic devices, para. 0007); a primary seller interface device (second computer system may be associated with the pharmacy, para. 0012); wherein the primary seller interface device receives an indication that a buyer wishes to purchase a prescription-based product from the primary seller; the primary seller interface device then transmits an indication to the server (computer system receives, at the interface circuit, pharmacy information associated with the second computer system that specifies, for a potential prescription transaction for a prescription, a cost for an individual, an overhead associated with an entity when the potential prescription transaction is facilitated by the entity, and a residual amount, para. 0033) that the buyer wishes to purchase the prescription-based product from the primary seller (individual is filling a prescription or conducting a prescription transaction at or with a pharmacy, para. 0046); the server retrieves primary seller confidential data associated with the primary seller interface device (During operation, the computer system may receive pharmacy information (operation 210) associated with the second computer system, where the pharmacy information specifies, for a potential prescription transaction for a prescription, a cost for an individual, an overhead associated with an entity when the potential prescription transaction is facilitated by the entity, and a residual amount, para. 0055) and evaluates a hypothetical sale of the prescription-based product from the primary seller based at least partially on the primary seller confidential data (pharmacy information may specify a potential prescription cost corresponding to a drug ingredient in the prescription and potential revenue for a pharmacy for the potential prescription transaction, para. 0009; one or more prescription-transaction constraints may include a minimum potential revenue of the pharmacy, para. 0020); upon determining that the hypothetical sale of the prescription-based product from the primary seller would not be profitable (computer system 130 may assess whether there is a prescription transaction advantage based at least in part on the overhead and a second overhead associated with a second entity when a second potential prescription transaction for the prescription is facilitated by the second entity, para. 0048), the server further retrieves secondary seller confidential data associated with the secondary seller interface device (computer system may assess whether there is a prescription-transaction advantage (operation 212) based at least in part on the overhead and a second overhead associated with a second entity when a second potential prescription transaction for the prescription is facilitated by the second entity, para. 0057) and evaluates an equivalent hypothetical sale (computer system 130 may provide comparison information associated with the second potential prescription transaction to computer system 112, where the comparison information specifies the second cost and the second residual amount, para. 0050) of the prescription-based product from the secondary seller based at least partially on the secondary seller confidential data (there may be the prescription-transaction advantage when the overhead is greater than the second overhead (and, thus, when the second entity is able to or willing to accept a smaller amount in the second potential prescription transaction than the entity is able to or willing to accept in the potential prescription transaction), para. 0048); and upon determining that the equivalent hypothetical sale from the secondary seller would be profitable (dynamic optimization may dynamically price the second potential prescription transaction based at least in part on the revenue of the pharmacy and a cost to the individual, para. 0049), initiating a transfer of the indication (When the second potential prescription transaction is less costly for the individual and/or offers more revenue for the pharmacy, the individual or the staff member in the pharmacy may select the potential prescription transaction or the second potential prescription transaction, para. 0051). However, Crane fails to disclose a secondary seller interface device; and initiating a transfer from the primary seller interface device to the secondary seller interface device.
Aldred, in the related field of systems and methods for automated processing of medical prescriptions, teaches a secondary seller interface device (pharmacy module for each pharmacy comprises an application on a desktop or laptop computer, para. 0074); and initiating a transfer from the primary seller interface device to the secondary seller interface device (may be determined that the selected pharmacy for fulfillment (e.g., selected by the patient or the prescriber) is no longer ideal, and the network 100 or the network 700 may transfer the medical prescription to a second pharmacy according to the method 400, para. 0077). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to transmit a prescription from one pharmacy to another as taught by the system of Aldred. The motivation for doing so would have been where authorization for the second pharmacy exists, the medical prescription may be transmitted 420 to the second pharmacy via a pharmacy module (Aldred, para. 0055).
In regards to claim 19, modified Crane discloses the system of claim 18 further comprising a database external to the server, the primary seller interface device and the secondary seller interface device (series may include one or more database transactions with ANiq may represent, for a quantity q in a series of prescription transactions i, the amount an insurance company, drug discount card or a pharmacy management system (PMS) would instruct a pharmacy to charge an individual for a prescription for medication of any national drug code (NDC) in a particular group or class, para. 0089), the database (historical information (HI) 418 about previous prescription transactions of at least the individual, which may be stored in memory 420, para. 0074) containing primary seller confidential data or secondary seller confidential data (every medication N, an initial ingredient fee, normalized to quantity of one (which may be represented as VN 1), may be calculated from historical data based at least in part on one or more factors (such as the mean ingredient fee, median ingredient fee, and/or other historical values), para. 0094), and wherein the server retrieves confidential data from the database (computer system may access historical information specifying prior prescription transactions for prescriptions of at least the individual, and the dynamic optimizing may be based at least in part on the historical information, para. 0013) upon authorization of such retrieval by the corresponding primary seller interface device or secondary seller interface device (pharmacy has a contract with the second entity for a service that provides the comparison information, para. 0059).
In regards to claim 20, modified Crane discloses the system of claim 18, wherein the primary seller interface device is a computer system associated with a primary pharmacy (second computer system may be associated with the pharmacy that has a contract with the second entity for a service that provides the comparison information, para. 0059), and wherein the indication is a prescription issued by a healthcare provider (individual is filling a prescription or conducting a prescription transaction at or with a pharmacy, para. 0046), but fails to disclose wherein the secondary seller interface device is a computer system associated with a secondary pharmacy.
Aldred, in the related field of systems and methods for automated processing of medical prescriptions, teaches wherein the secondary seller interface device (pharmacy module for each pharmacy comprises an application on a desktop or laptop computer, para. 0074) is a computer system associated with a secondary pharmacy (may be determined that the selected pharmacy for fulfillment (e.g., selected by the patient or the prescriber) is no longer ideal, and the network 100 or the network 700 may transfer the medical prescription to a second pharmacy according to the method 400, para. 0077). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to transmit a prescription from one pharmacy to another as taught by the system of Aldred. The motivation for doing so would have been where authorization for the second pharmacy exists, the medical prescription may be transmitted 420 to the second pharmacy via a pharmacy module (Aldred, para. 0055).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane, in view of Aldred, and further in view of US 11,170,394 to Macinski (hereinafter referred to as Macinski).
In regards to claim 9, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 8 wherein the evaluation of the hypothetical sale (computer system 130 may provide comparison information associated with the second potential prescription transaction to computer system 112, where the comparison information specifies the second cost and the second residual amount, para. 0050) from the primary seller and the evaluation of the equivalent hypothetical sale from the at least one secondary seller are each further based on available reimbursements applicable to either hypothetical sale (When the second potential prescription transaction is less costly for the individual and/or offers more revenue for the pharmacy, the individual or the staff member in the pharmacy may select the potential prescription transaction or the second potential prescription transaction, para. 0051), but fails to disclose reimbursements from a manufacturer or payer.
Macinski, in the related field of managing pricing guarantees for prescription drugs, teaches reimbursements from a manufacturer or payer (Pharmacy benefit managers may obtain discount pricing on prescription drugs through various mechanisms, for example through the development of pharmacy networks including retail pharmacies providing negotiated pricing discounts, through rebates from pharmaceutical manufacturers, col. 1, lines 1-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to track manufacturer reimbursements as taught by the system of Macinski. The motivation for doing so would have been to offer a drug benefit program to a client by obtaining prescription drugs according to pricing, pharmacy selection, rebates, discounts and the like provided by the terms of the drug benefit program (Macinski, col. 2, lines 6-17).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane, in view of Aldred, and further in view of US 2019/0341139 to Kello et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kello).
In regards to claim 11, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose further comprising maintaining an account for each of the primary seller and the at least one secondary seller, and wherein the method is performed repeatedly, and wherein the method further comprises tracking a plurality of transfers of indications from the primary seller to a plurality of sellers of the at least one secondary seller including the selected seller over time.
Kello, in the related field of systems that allow pharmacies to more easily interact with each other, teaches maintaining an account for each of the primary seller and the at least one secondary seller (system 100 will require the participating entities to establish verified accounts (such as a pharmacy account 110) before being allowed to view information on the system 100 or otherwise participate in transactions using the system 100, para. 0053), and wherein the method is performed repeatedly (inventory subsystem 208 can interface directly with the inventory management applications of buyers and sellers, allowing for the automated and near instantaneous updating of inventory 112 information, para. 0115), and wherein the method further comprises tracking a plurality of transfers of indications from the primary seller to a plurality of sellers of the at least one secondary seller (Any attribute or characteristic of a transaction 128 can potentially constitute a transaction attribute that the system 100 is configured to create, store, update, and delete as applicable including account number, profile 118, or other indicia of the identities of the buyer and seller; pharmaceutical products 106 included in a transaction 128 and their relevant pharmaceutical attributes 108; communications 120 and notifications 130 used in consummating the particular transaction 128; payment mechanisms 116 used to fulfill the particular transaction; transportation mechanisms 124 used to ship the applicable pharmaceutical products 106; payments 134 made; prices charged; changes in status 122 throughout the transaction process; calculations 142 pertaining to the transaction; and any other attribute that is specific to a transaction 128) including the selected seller over time (pharmacy attributes stored in relation to a particular pharmacy account include historical metrics 136 pertaining to past interactions with the system 100; feedback from transaction partners; number of locations; credit rating; various financial metrics; and potentially any other characteristic of a pharmacy 102, para. 0060). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to track transaction data as taught by the system of Kello. The motivation for doing so would have been to use history attributes as incentives for effective use of the system (Kello, para. 0084).
In regards to claim 12, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein upon confirming a transfer of the indication from the primary seller to the selected seller, applying a transfer fee to the account of the primary seller and charging the transfer fee to the account of the selected seller
Aldred, in the related field of systems and methods for automated processing of medical prescriptions, teaches wherein upon confirming a transfer of the indication from the primary seller to the selected seller (may be determined that the selected pharmacy for fulfillment (e.g., selected by the patient or the prescriber) is no longer ideal, and the network 100 or the network 700 may transfer the medical prescription to a second pharmacy according to the method 400, para. 0077). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to transmit a prescription from one pharmacy to another as taught by the system of Aldred. The motivation for doing so would have been where authorization for the second pharmacy exists, the medical prescription may be transmitted 420 to the second pharmacy via a pharmacy module (Aldred, para. 0055).
Kello, in the related field of systems that allow pharmacies to more easily interact with each other, teaches applying a transfer fee to the account of the primary seller (system could be provided free of charge, with the only charge assessed to users being a transaction-based charge paid by the seller and buyer, para. 0043) and charging the transfer fee to the account of the selected seller (participating pharmacies 102 are charged a fixed service charge by the ASP when they sell one or more pharmaceutical products 106 to another pharmacy 102 using the system 100, para. 0083). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to charge a fee as taught by the system of Kello. The motivation for doing so would have been for the charging of fees limited to transaction fees that are charged only when a desirable transaction is actually consummated (Kello, para. 0051).
In regards to claim 13, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 11 further comprising upon receiving confirmation that the buyer has made a partial payment to the primary seller (staff conducts prescription transaction with the individual including receiving payment, para. 0052), transmitting an indication to the selected seller that partial payment has been received, and applying a credit to the account of the selected seller in accordance with the partial payment (when the second computer system selectively performs the prescription transaction, the second computer provides instructions to conduct an electronic payment of the second overhead to a financial account associated with a provider of the computer system (such as at the end of business day) and/or may otherwise credit the provider of the computer system for the second overhead, para. 0071)
In regards to claim 14, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 11, but fails to disclose further comprising assigning loyalty points associated with the primary seller to the buyer upon the buyer purchasing the prescription-based product from the selected seller.
Aldred, in the related field of systems and methods for automated processing of medical prescriptions, teaches assigning loyalty points associated with the primary seller to the buyer (receive discount information associated with the customer; and adjust the customer cost for the pharmacy based on the discount information, para. 0011) upon the buyer purchasing the prescription-based product from the selected seller (discount information is related to one or more of a pharmacy benefit manager, a pharmacy membership, a discount program, an employment benefit program, a co-pay card, a discount card, and a coupon. According to additional embodiments, the discount information is received from one or more of the customer and the pharmacy, para. 0011). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to apply a customer discount to the prescription as taught by the system of Aldred. The motivation for doing so would have been receive discount information from the customer and adjust the customer cost for the pharmacy based upon the discount (Aldred, para. 0019).
In regards to claim 15, modified Crane discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein upon determining that the equivalent hypothetical sale from the selected seller (pharmacy information may specify a potential prescription cost corresponding to a drug ingredient in the prescription and potential revenue for a pharmacy for the potential prescription transaction, para. 0009; one or more prescription-transaction constraints may include a minimum potential revenue of the pharmacy, para. 0020) would not be profitable (computer system 130 may assess whether there is a prescription transaction advantage based at least in part on the overhead and a second overhead associated with a second entity when a second potential prescription transaction for the prescription is facilitated by the second entity, para. 0048), the method further comprises initiating a transfer of the indication (When the second potential prescription transaction is less costly for the individual and/or offers more revenue for the pharmacy, the individual or the staff member in the pharmacy may select the potential prescription transaction or the second potential prescription transaction, para. 0051), but fails to disclose a transfer from the primary seller to a backup pharmacy, wherein the backup pharmacy commits preemptively to fulfilling orders for eligible prescription-based products.
Aldred, in the related field of systems and methods for automated processing of medical prescriptions, teaches initiating a transfer from the primary seller to a backup pharmacy (may be determined that the selected pharmacy for fulfillment (e.g., selected by the patient or the prescriber) is no longer ideal, and the network 100 or the network 700 may transfer the medical prescription to a second pharmacy according to the method 400, para. 0077). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to transmit a prescription from one pharmacy to another as taught by the system of Aldred. The motivation for doing so would have been where authorization for the second pharmacy exists, the medical prescription may be transmitted 420 to the second pharmacy via a pharmacy module (Aldred, para. 0055). However the combination of and Aldred fail to teach wherein the backup pharmacy commits preemptively to fulfilling orders for eligible prescription-based products.
Kello, in the related field of systems that allow pharmacies to more easily interact with each other, teaches wherein the backup pharmacy commits preemptively to fulfilling orders for eligible prescription-based products (the functionality of the system 100 is integrated with an electronic prescription service, with the filling out of a relatively low volume prescription automatically triggered a communication 120 to the applicable pharmacy 102 to initiate procurement of the needed medication product 106, para. 0047). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Crane with the ability to automatically order a prescription from another pharmacy as taught by the system of Kello. The motivation for doing so would have been to integrate the system with IT applications to provide for inventory management, payment mechanisms, transportation/shipment mechanisms, electronic prescription application, online medical records, automated certification systems, to provide valuable additional benefits to users of the system (Kello, para. 0047).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Domashnev (US 20050177392) teaches an electronic prescription handling system.
Mahinda (US 20090083064) teaches a method for providing competitive pricing for various prescription drugs through secure online bidding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 2/3/2026