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 office action for the 19/076698 application is in response to the communications filed March 11, 2025.
Claims 1-20 were initially submitted March 11, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and considered below.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 15-20,
Claims 15-20 are directed to one or more computer-storage media. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more computer-readable storage media” includes forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. See MPEP 2111.01. The applicant’s specification at paragraph [0025] describes that “the disclosed embodiments may also be implemented as instructions carried by or stored on a transitory or non-transitory machine-readable (e.g., computer-readable) storage medium”. This description from the as-filed specification constitutes that the claim language is claiming transitory propagating signals. To correct this issue, the Examiner suggests that the Applicant either amend the specification or the claims in such a way as to exclude signals or limit the current claim to non-transitory or tangible computer readable storage medium.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of a method, comprising: receiving a request from a client device of a user to access an inventory storage device storing one or more controlled substances; receiving a hardware log generated by the inventory storage device, the hardware log providing one or more records relating to the access of the inventory storage device by the user, each record providing information relating to one of the one or more controlled substances removed from the inventory storage device; generating, for each of the one or more records, an entry for a controlled substance log maintained by the platform application; updating the controlled substance log with the generated entry for each of the one or more records. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recite a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“executing on one or more processors” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0029] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea amount to nothing more than a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or 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 of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“by a platform application” and “causing the inventory storage device to provide access to the client device” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“by a platform application” and “causing the inventory storage device to provide access to the client device” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein causing the inventory storage device to provide access to the client device comprises: sending, via an application programming interface (API), a request to a hardware management server to unlock the inventory storage device, wherein, in response to receiving the request, the hardware management server transmits a signal to the inventory storage device.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
“via an application programming interface (API)” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“via an application programming interface (API)” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“via an application programming interface (API)” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising, receiving the hardware log generated by the inventory storage device from the hardware management server.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein generating, for each of the one or more records, the entry for the controlled substance log comprises:… populating fields of the entry with corresponding information from the one or more records …based on a mapping between fields of the one or more records and the fields of the entry.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“in the cache” and “storing the one or more records in a cache;” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the fields of the entry comprise a timestamp, controlled substance name, and a patient name.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 6 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising, providing a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device for adding a plurality of second controlled substance log entries, wherein the client device displays the GUI to prompt the user to provide information for the plurality of second controlled substance log entries via the GUI.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“further comprising, providing a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device for adding a plurality of second controlled substance log entries, wherein the client device displays the GUI to prompt the user to provide information for the plurality of second controlled substance log entries via the GUI.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“further comprising, providing a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device for adding a plurality of second controlled substance log entries, wherein the client device displays the GUI to prompt the user to provide information for the plurality of second controlled substance log entries via the GUI.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“generates one or more of the plurality of second controlled substance log entries in response to the user providing information for the plurality of the second controlled substance log entries” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“via the GUI.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
“wherein the client device” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“wherein the client device” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0029] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea amount to nothing more than a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or 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 of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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 recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
As per claim 14,
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
As per claim 15,
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 16,
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 17,
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
As per claim 18,
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 19,
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 20,
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot et al. (US 2022/0301697; herein referred to as Elliot) in view of Mousseau et al. (US 2022/0172815; herein referred to as Mousseau).
As per claim 1,
Elliot teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by a platform application executing on one or more processors, a request from a client device of a user to access an inventory storage device storing one or more controlled substances:
(Paragraphs [0025] and [0026] of Elliot. The teaching describes client device 102 may be embodied as a physical computing device (e.g., a desktop computer, laptop computer, mobile device such as a mobile tablet or a smartphone, etc.) or a virtual computing instance executing in a cloud network. A user of the client device 102 may be an individual employed at a medical practice, such as a veterinary practice (e.g., a veterinary clinic, hospital, office with a pharmacy, etc.) that administers treatment to an animal patient, such as dispensing and administering medication to the patient, including controlled substances. Illustratively, the client device 102 includes an inventory management application 104. The inventory management application 104 provides an drug inventory management interface enabling the user to record controlled substance usage over the course of the day.)
Elliot further teaches causing the inventory storage device to provide access to the client device:
(Paragraph [0026] of Elliot. The teaching describes that the interface may be embodied as a “digital log book” that maintains records of usage and controlled substance inventory of the practice)
Elliot further teaches receiving a hardware log generated by the inventory storage device, the hardware log providing one or more records relating to the access of the inventory storage device by the user, and generating, for each of the one or more records, an entry for a controlled substance log maintained by the platform application:
(Paragraph [0026] of Elliot. The teaching describes the user may, via the inventory management application 104, record entries of controlled substance usage into the digital log book provided by the interface. The interface may allow the user to enter, for example, patient information (e.g., name, chart ID, owner name, treatment), drug name, quantity, physician information, approval information, and so on. Further, the inventory management application 104 is integrated with one or more PIMS, such as PIMS 106.)
Elliot further teaches updating the controlled substance log with the generated entry for each of the one or more records:
(Paragraph [0029] of Elliot. The teaching describes the platform server 110 performs reconciliation of data recorded in the digital log book of the inventory management application 104 and the data provided in the PIMS 106.)
Elliot does not explicitly teach each record providing information relating to one of the one or more controlled substances removed from the inventory storage device.
However, Mousseau teaches a record providing information relating to one of the one or more controlled substances removed from the inventory storage device:
(Paragraph [0039] of Mousseau. The teaching describes a method of controlling and tracking a dosage rule file between a central database and a drug watchdog program running on a dispensing device. The method involves, at a drug watchdog program, detecting a connection to a drug dispenser's computer; verifying a login by a drug dispenser's to permit access to the dispensing device; using an interface to generate a dosage rule file; initiating a secure link between the drug watchdog program and the central database by creating and using a shared encryption key; uploading to the central database over the secure link the dosage rule file and other messages related to operation of the dispensing device, wherein the dosage rule file configures the drug watchdog program to: open a main compartment of the dispensing device using an unlock mechanism to allow drugs to be inserted into the main compartment; detect the closure of the main compartment through a locking mechanism and allowing the controlled release of the drugs contained in the main compartment using an ejection mechanism; and send feedback messages to the central database of activities detected on the dispensing device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to add to the controlled substance tracking techniques of Elliot, the physical dispensation controlled substance tracking techniques of Mousseau. Paragraph [0220] of Mousseau teaches that the disclosed methods implemented established an improved safety and trackability of prescriptions. One of ordinary skill in the art in possession of Elliot would have looked to Mousseau to achieve this increased safety and trackability for users and patients. One of ordinary skill in the art would have added to the teaching of Elliot, the teaching of Mousseau, based on these incentives without yielding unexpected results.
As per claim 2,
The combined teaching of Elliot and Mousseau teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combined teaching of Elliot and Mousseau further teach wherein causing the inventory storage device to provide access to the client device comprises: sending, via an application programming interface (API), a request to a hardware management server to unlock the inventory storage device, wherein, in response to receiving the request, the hardware management server transmits a signal to the inventory storage device:
(Paragraph [0029] of Elliot. The teaching describes that the platform application 112 may provide an API to the inventory management application 104 to enable communication (e.g., transmission of PIMS data, local controlled usage log data, etc.) between the applications 104 and 112. In other embodiments, the platform application 112 also maintains and stores usage data provided by multiple client devices 102 each executing an instance of the inventory management application 104 (e.g., in the event that a client device 102 is a mobile device such as a tablet, and the inventory management application 104 is operated by multiple users). In other further embodiments, the platform server 110 performs reconciliation of data recorded in the digital log book of the inventory management application 104 and the data provided in the PIMS 106. The platform application 112 may use APIs provided by the server application 116 to communicate with the PIMS 106.)
(Paragraph [0039] of Mousseau. The teaching describes a method of controlling and tracking a dosage rule file between a central database and a drug watchdog program running on a dispensing device. The method involves, at a drug watchdog program, detecting a connection to a drug dispenser's computer; verifying a login by a drug dispenser's to permit access to the dispensing device; using an interface to generate a dosage rule file; initiating a secure link between the drug watchdog program and the central database by creating and using a shared encryption key; uploading to the central database over the secure link the dosage rule file and other messages related to operation of the dispensing device, wherein the dosage rule file configures the drug watchdog program to: open a main compartment of the dispensing device using an unlock mechanism to allow drugs to be inserted into the main compartment; detect the closure of the main compartment through a locking mechanism and allowing the controlled release of the drugs contained in the main compartment using an ejection mechanism; and send feedback messages to the central database of activities detected on the dispensing device.)
As per claim 3,
The combined teaching of Elliot and Mousseau teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Elliot further teaches further comprising, receiving the hardware log generated by the inventory storage device from the hardware management server:
(Paragraph [0026] of Elliot. The teaching describes the user may, via the inventory management application 104, record entries of controlled substance usage into the digital log book provided by the interface. The interface may allow the user to enter, for example, patient information (e.g., name, chart ID, owner name, treatment), drug name, quantity, physician information, approval information, and so on. Further, the inventory management application 104 is integrated with one or more PIMS, such as PIMS 106.)
As per claim 4,
The combined teaching of Elliot and Mousseau teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Elliot further teaches wherein generating, for each of the one or more records, the entry for the controlled substance log comprises: storing the one or more records in a cache; populating fields of the entry with corresponding information from the one or more records in the cache based on a mapping between fields of the one or more records and the fields of the entry:
(Paragraph [0026] of Elliot. The teaching describes the user may, via the inventory management application 104, record entries of controlled substance usage into the digital log book provided by the interface. The interface may allow the user to enter, for example, patient information (e.g., name, chart ID, owner name, treatment), drug name, quantity, physician information, approval information, and so on. Further, the inventory management application 104 is integrated with one or more PIMS, such as PIMS 106.)
As per claim 5,
The combined teaching of Elliot and Mousseau teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Elliot further teaches wherein the fields of the entry comprise a timestamp, controlled substance name, and a patient name:
(Paragraph [0026] of Elliot. The teaching describes the user may, via the inventory management application 104, record entries of controlled substance usage into the digital log book provided by the interface. The interface may allow the user to enter, for example, patient information (e.g., name, chart ID, owner name, treatment), drug name, quantity, physician information, approval information, and so on. Further, the inventory management application 104 is integrated with one or more PIMS, such as PIMS 106.)
As per claim 6,
The combined teaching of Elliot and Mousseau teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Elliot further teaches further comprising, providing a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device for adding a plurality of second controlled substance log entries, wherein the client device displays the GUI to prompt the user to provide information for the plurality of second controlled substance log entries via the GUI:
(Paragraph [0026] of Elliot. The teaching describes the user may, via the inventory management application 104, record entries of controlled substance usage into the digital log book provided by the interface. The interface may allow the user to enter, for example, patient information (e.g., name, chart ID, owner name, treatment), drug name, quantity, physician information, approval information, and so on. Further, the inventory management application 104 is integrated with one or more PIMS, such as PIMS 106.)
As per claim 7,
The combined teaching of Elliot and Mousseau teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Elliot further teaches wherein the client device generates one or more of the plurality of second controlled substance log entries in response to the user providing information for the plurality of the second controlled substance log entries via the GUI:
(Paragraph [0026] of Elliot. The teaching describes the user may, via the inventory management application 104, record entries of controlled substance usage into the digital log book provided by the interface. The interface may allow the user to enter, for example, patient information (e.g., name, chart ID, owner name, treatment), drug name, quantity, physician information, approval information, and so on. Further, the inventory management application 104 is integrated with one or more PIMS, such as PIMS 106.)
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
As per claim 14,
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
As per claim 15,
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 16,
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 17,
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
As per claim 18,
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 19,
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 20,
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681