Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/079,514

METHOD FOR REGISTERING A USER IN A MEDICAL SOFTWARE APPLICATION

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Mar 14, 2025
Examiner
QAYYUM, ZESHAN
Art Unit
3697
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Fresenius Vial SAS
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
40%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
5y 1m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 40% of resolved cases
40%
Career Allow Rate
172 granted / 429 resolved
-11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 1m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
459
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§103
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§102
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 429 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 Claims 1-11 have been examined. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-11 are allowable over prior art and further in view of overcoming U.S.C. 101 rejection. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 03/14/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. 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 1-11 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. In the instance case, claims 1-9 are directed to a computing device and claims 10-11 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. The claims are directed to registering a user which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “providing a registration code… to the user…; receiving from the user, the registration code and at least one user credential…; processing…the registration code…; creating a user account for the user… ” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for providing a registration code to a user, receiving the registration code and credential from the user, processing the registration code and credentials and creating a user account which is process deals with commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as, software application and personal computer merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, software application and personal computer perform the steps of providing a registration code to a user, receiving the registration code and credential from the user, processing the registration code and credentials and creating a user account. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of software application and personal computer, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of registering a user. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, software application and personal computer the steps of providing a registration code to a user, receiving the registration code and credential from the user, processing the registration code and credentials and creating a user account. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of registering a user. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11 further describes the abstract idea of registering a user. Specifically claims 2, 7-8 and 11 just describing the information such as credential and code. This further describes the abstract idea because it involves in the analysis of the information. Claims 3-6 describing the checking and processing the information which is part of the abstract idea because it describes the manner in which user registration is performed. Claim 9 describing the additional element which is used as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sather (US 10373149) discloses: offline user authentication (See column 6 lines 56-67) Dean (US 10013536) discloses license activation and management (See Abstract) DEVAKI (US 20160086375) discloses user login utilizing license key and credentials (See paragraph 0033) Bliding (US 20120222103) discloses access control during offline mode (See Abstract). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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. /ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602184
Systems and Methods for Source Chain Management with Identity-Based Tokens and Enhanced Security
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12561672
COMPUTING SYSTEM IMPLEMENTING AUTOMATED TRANSACTION EXECUTION BASED ON MESSAGING TRIGGERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555108
ANALYTICS RULES ENGINE FOR CREDIT TRANSACTION STACKING IDENTIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548023
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR BLOCKING MULTI-RAIL CONTACTLESS FRAUD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12542939
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS CORRESPONDING TO RECORDINGS OF LIVE EVENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
40%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+30.1%)
5y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 429 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month