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 04/17/2025.
In a preliminary amendment, claim 1 was cancelled, and claims 2-21 were added.
Claims 2-21 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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-21: Step 1
Claims 2-16 are drawn to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 17-21 is drawn to a method of providing healthcare plan options, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Claims 2-21: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 17 recites receiving, from a user, one or more medical parameters; determining geographic location parameters; formulating, plan queries based on the one or more medical parameters and the geographic location parameters; transmitting the plan queries; executing the plan queries by the data provider to determine plan query results; transmitting, the plan query results; determining, plan options based at least in part on the plan query results from the data provider; receiving, at least one selection from the plan options; determining, one or more healthcare plan choices based on the at least one selection from the plan options; and providing, a menu comprising the one or more healthcare plan choices. Claims 2 and 10 recite similar limitations.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior by manually following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. But for the recitation of generic computer components, these limitations encompass a user receiving, from a user, one or more medical parameters; determining geographic location parameters; formulating, plan queries based on the one or more medical parameters and the geographic location parameters; transmitting the plan queries; executing the plan queries by the data provider to determine plan query results; transmitting, the plan query results; determining, plan options based at least in part on the plan query results from the data provider; receiving, at least one selection from the plan options; determining, one or more healthcare plan choices based on the at least one selection from the plan options; and providing, a menu comprising the one or more healthcare plan choices. These steps could be carried out manually by a user following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Claims 2 and 10 recite similar limitations.
Claims 3-9, 11-16 and 18-21 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Claims 3, 4 and 13 further define determining local pharmacy options. Claims 5, 6 and 11 further define receiving various inputs. Claim 7 further defines seeking alternatives to medical parameters. Claim 8 further defines the medical parameters. Claim 9 further defines geographic location parameters. Claim 12 further defines at least one preferred pharmacy. Claims 14 and 21 further define determining at least one generic alternative. Claim 15 further defines providing healthcare plan options. Claims 16 and 20 further define providing a prescription search tool. Claim 18 further defines identifying a pharmacy having a minimum total cost. Claim 19 further defines receiving input of at least one preferred pharmacy. Therefore, these claims are similarly drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2-21: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity, and adding limitations similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Claim 2 and 10 recite the additional elements that one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform various steps. Claim 17 recites a method of providing healthcare plan options.
Claims 2-21, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components: “non-transitory computer-readable media,” “processor,” and “web server” which are similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “the invention includes a system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory storing computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to carry out actions“ (see at least Paragraph [0005]), “For example, computer-readable media include (but are not limited to) RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile discs (DVD), holographic media or other optical disc storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage, and other magnetic storage devices” (see at least Paragraph [0022]) and “Alternatively, or in addition, web server 216 may provide a direct client/server interface with which a user may use devices such as consumer device 202 to interact with elements of system 200 via dedicated software” (see at least Paragraph [0027]). Although the additional elements limits the identified judicial exceptions, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05 (h). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 2-21: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). As explained above, the generic computer components and machine learning are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e. receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result has also been found to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology, (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the high-level recitation of an output of results also fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of providing healthcare plan options, the method comprising: …”. Claims 2-9 are indefinite because they are considered hybrid claims. See MPEP §2173.05(p) II. In particular, the claims are directed to neither a "process" or a "machine" but rather embrace or overlap two different statutory classes of invention. Therefore in accordance with §2173.05(p) II which states that a single claim must be drawn to either a product or process (but not both) and because a potential competitor of Applicant(s) would not know whether possession alone of the claimed structure constituted infringement, or alternatively, if infringement required the execution of the recited method steps, the claims are indefinite. All dependent claims, namely claims 3-9, are rejected for at least the same reason.
Claim 10, recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of providing healthcare plan options, the method comprising: …”. Claims 10-16 are indefinite because they are considered hybrid claims. See MPEP §2173.05(p) II. In particular, the claims are directed to neither a "process" or a "machine" but rather embrace or overlap two different statutory classes of invention. Therefore in accordance with §2173.05(p) II which states that a single claim must be drawn to either a product or process (but not both) and because a potential competitor of Applicant(s) would not know whether possession alone of the claimed structure constituted infringement, or alternatively, if infringement required the execution of the recited method steps, the claims are indefinite. All dependent claims, namely claims 11-16, are rejected for at least the same reason.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art axe 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.
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 2, 7, 9-10, 14-15, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0225096 A1 to Wells et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0039911 A1 to Iyer.
Claim 2:
Wells discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections below:
causing display, by a client device, of a modal dialog (see at least Fig. 8, County; FIG. 7 illustrates an example screen of a GUI 700 that user interface module 231 may provide to client 210. Health insurance companies often set premiums for their plans using price curves that vary based on age, location and tobacco use, among other factors; Fig. 12, Prescription name; Fig. 14, Rx prescriptions; Paragraphs 4-6, graphical user interface (GUI); Paragraph 44);
receiving, by the modal dialog and from a user, one or more medical parameters (see at least Fig. 8, County; FIG. 7 illustrates an example screen of a GUI 700 that user interface module 231 may provide to client 210. Health insurance companies often set premiums for their plans using price curves that vary based on age, location and tobacco use, among other factors; Fig. 12, Prescription name; Fig. 14, Rx prescriptions; Paragraphs 4-6, graphical user interface (GUI); Paragraph 44, FIG. 8 illustrates another example screen of GUI in which the user has entered an age of 35 and a location of Cook County, Illinois; Paragraph 55, A second mechanism for entering health condition information involves the manual entry of prescription drugs a patient is taking and the associated cost, primary doctor visits per year and the associated cost, and/or specialist visits per year and the associated cost. An example of such a mechanism is depicted in FIGS. 11-14);
formulating, by the web server, plan queries based on the one or more medical parameters and the geographic location parameters (see at least Fig. 14; Fig. 18B, Determining premiums based on location; Paragraph 55, As the user adds prescriptions and/or doctor visits, recommendation engine 232 may continue to consult plan table 233, master drug table 234 and drug formularies table 235 and to update listing 760 in accordance with the added information concerning the user's health condition, as shown in FIG. 14; Paragraph 62. Next, a GUI is generated (block 1808), for example by a user interface module 231, and transmitted to a client 210 (block 1810). Once transmitted, the GUI may then request location information from the client 210 (block 1812). Location information may then be received from the client 210 (block 1814));
transmitting the plan queries from the web server to the data provider (Fig. 14; Fig. 18B; Fig. 18C; Paragraph 61; Paragraph 62, Next, a GUI is generated (block 1808), for example by a user interface module 231, and transmitted to a client 210 (block 1810). Once transmitted, the GUI may then request location information from the client 210 (block 1812). Location information may then be received from the client 210 (block 1814));
executing the plan queries by the data provider to determine plan query results (see at least Fig. 14; Fig. 18B; Fig. 18C; Paragraph 26; Paragraph 27; Paragraph 61, FIGS. 18A, 18B and 18C illustrate first, second and third portions, respectively, of a flowchart 1800 for a method for generating a listing of available health insurance plans and associated costs, in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention; Paragraph 67, Referring again to FIG. 18, once the healthcare costs have been determined, a listing of available health insurance plans and associated costs is generated (block 1828) and transmitted to client 210 (block 1830). Although block 1830 is depicted in a particular position within flowchart 1800, it should be appreciated that the step of generating a listing of available plans and associated costs may be performed at numerous other locations within the process);
transmitting, by the data provider and to the web server, the plan query results (see at least Fig. 18B; Fig 18C; Paragraph 26; Paragraph 27; Paragraph 67, Referring again to FIG. 18, once the healthcare costs have been determined, a listing of available health insurance plans and associated costs is generated (block 1828) and transmitted to client 210 (block 1830). Although block 1830 is depicted in a particular position within flowchart 1800, it should be appreciated that the step of generating a listing of available plans and associated costs may be performed at numerous other locations within the process);
determining, by the web server, plan options based at least in part on the plan query results from the data provider (see at least Fig. 14; Fig. 18B, Determining premiums based on location; Paragraph 55, As the user adds prescriptions and/or doctor visits, recommendation engine 232 may continue to consult plan table 233, master drug table 234 and drug formularies table 235 and to update listing 760 in accordance with the added information concerning the user's health condition, as shown in FIG. 14; Paragraph 67, Referring again to FIG. 18, once the healthcare costs have been determined, a listing of available health insurance plans and associated costs is generated (block 1828) and transmitted to client 210 (block 1830). Although block 1830 is depicted in a particular position within flowchart 1800, it should be appreciated that the step of generating a listing of available plans and associated costs may be performed at numerous other locations within the process);
causing display of a plan wall comprising the plan options by a graphical user interface of the client device (see at least Fig. 14; Fig. 18B, Determining premiums based on location; Paragraph 55, As the user adds prescriptions and/or doctor visits, recommendation engine 232 may continue to consult plan table 233, master drug table 234 and drug formularies table 235 and to update listing 760 in accordance with the added information concerning the user's health condition, as shown in FIG. 14);
determining, by the web server, one or more healthcare plan choices based on the at least one selection from the plan options (see at least Fig. 14; Fig. 18B, Determining premiums based on location; Paragraph 55, As the user adds prescriptions and/or doctor visits, recommendation engine 232 may continue to consult plan table 233, master drug table 234 and drug formularies table 235 and to update listing 760 in accordance with the added information concerning the user's health condition, as shown in FIG. 14); and
providing, by the graphical user interface, a menu comprising the one or more healthcare plan choices (see at least Fig. 14; Fig. 18B, Determining premiums based on location; Paragraph 55, As the user adds prescriptions and/or doctor visits, recommendation engine 232 may continue to consult plan table 233, master drug table 234 and drug formularies table 235 and to update listing 760 in accordance with the added information concerning the user's health condition, as shown in FIG. 14).
Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations, but Iyer as shown does:
determining geographic location parameters by a web service call from a web server to a data provider (see at least Paragraph 13, The claimed invention can identify types and locations of healthcare providers to be utilized. The directory can be compiled and mapped using a GPS or other location determination techniques of a smartphone or other computing device; Paragraph 41, The pharmacy detail database 125 is configured to search for local pharmacies using the GPS or other location determining circuitry of the smartphone, browser or zip code entered by user. The pharmacy detail database 125 is also configured to determine the name, logo, address, phone number, store hours and other relevant details of over 60,000 pharmacies. The pharmacy detail database 125 also includes the longitude and latitude of each pharmacy to enable GPS or location search; Paragraph 78, The back-end database layer 203 stores and retrieves information from a number the databases, including Database layer 203 includes Drug Listing Database 121, Prescription Frequency Database 123, Pharmacy Detail Database 125, Pharmacy Claims Database 127, Therapeutic Alternative and Pricing Range Database 129, Provider Directory Database 131, User Profile and Saved Items Database 133, and Contracted Drug Database 135, as described above. Where any of the databases is accessed via an API or via a web service, a single API call can include the function and aggregate results from one or more logical database);
receiving, by the graphical user interface, at least one selection from the plan options (see at least Paragraph 114, user can opt to purchase a discounted medical service plan (in this example, a discounted dental plan) by selecting dental plan button 3007. In the example shown in FIG. 3Y, the user selected buy dental plan 3007, and additional information regarding payment information 3009 for the selected dental plan will be shown on display 418 of the user device 301);
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells with Iyer with the motivation “… to effectively and efficiently explore lower cost treatment alternatives when faced with high prescription medication costs” and “… to determine, compare, locate and manage prescribed treatments including prescription drugs and other medical treatments” (Iyer, see at least Paragraphs 9-10).
Claims 10 and 17 recite substantially similar of non-transitory computer-readable media and method limitations to those of non-transitory computer-readable media claim 2 and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 7:
The combination of Wells/Iyer discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations, but Iyer as shown does:
wherein the plan queries comprise seeking alternatives to the one or more medical parameters, wherein the plan query results comprise the alternatives to the one or more medical parameters (see at least Fig. 3F, generic; Fig. 3L, generic; Paragraphs 9-10, effectively and efficiently explore lower cost treatment alternatives when faced with high prescription medication costs” and “… to determine, compare, locate and manage prescribed treatments including prescription drugs and other medical treatments; Paragraph 43; Paragraph 91, Fig. 3F show a listing of local pharmacies at which the entered drug can be purchased; Paragraph 101, For example, a user can choose to limit the search to brand name only drugs or to expand the search to include brand name and generic drugs)
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells with Iyer for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2.
Claim 9:
The combination of Wells/Iyer discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the geographic location parameters comprise an IP address, a country code, or a county code (see at least Fig. 7, County; Paragraph 43, FIG. 7 illustrates an example screen of a GUI 700 that user interface module 231 may provide to client 210. Health insurance companies often set premiums for their plans using price curves that vary based on age, location and tobacco use, among other factors).
Claim 14:
The combination of Wells/Iyer discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations but Iyer as shown does:
determining a medicine that has at least one generic alternative, determining a minimum total cost is based at least in part on the at least one generic alternative (see at least Fig. 3F, generic; Fig. 3L, generic; Paragraphs 9-10, effectively and efficiently explore lower cost treatment alternatives when faced with high prescription medication costs” and “… to determine, compare, locate and manage prescribed treatments including prescription drugs and other medical treatments; Paragraph 43; Paragraph 91, Fig. 3F show a listing of local pharmacies at which the entered drug can be purchased; Paragraph 101, For example, a user can choose to limit the search to brand name only drugs or to expand the search to include brand name and generic drugs).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells with Iyer for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2.
Claim 21 recites substantially similar method limitations to those of non-transitory computer-readable media claim 14 and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 15:
The combination of Wells/Iyer discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the method further comprises providing the healthcare plan options by a plurality of tabs, wherein each tab of the plurality of tabs provides a different healthcare plan option (see at least Fig. 14; Fig. 18B, Determining premiums based on location; Paragraph 55, As the user adds prescriptions and/or doctor visits, recommendation engine 232 may continue to consult plan table 233, master drug table 234 and drug formularies table 235 and to update listing 760 in accordance with the added information concerning the user's health condition, as shown in FIG. 14).
Claim 18:
The combination of Wells/Iyer discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations but Iyer as shown does:
identifying the pharmacy having a minimum total cost for one or more prescription medicines by making an application programming interface call to a pharmaceutical cost data provider (see at least Paragraph 49, server and the user devices can be further configured to engage in a secure communication with other devices and/or each other using mechanisms such as Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), … and the like)
and determining the plan options based at least in part on a pharmacy having the minimum total cost for the one or more prescription medicines (see at least Paragraph).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells with Iyer for at least the same reasons given for claim 2 above.
Claims 3-6, 11, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0225096 A1 to Wells et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0039911 A1 to Iyer and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2012/0253829 A1 to John et al.
Claim 3:
The combination of Wells/Iyer discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations, but John as shown does:
determining local pharmacy options based on the geographic location parameters (see at least Fig. 4, Ele. 430, Determine actual pharmacies that satisfy patient pharmacy location preference and/or are covered under any patient healthcare plan, Ele. 450, Deliver, to patient device/computer, presentation of pharmacy locations, cost data, and any incentives; Paragraph 150, Specified Location and Distance/Radius: Specifies an address, or any portion thereof (e.g., a zip code), for purposes of locating dispensing pharmacies 120a-n within proximity to the specified address or portion thereof); and
providing the local pharmacy options to the user by the graphical user interface (see at least Fig. 4, Ele. 430, Determine actual pharmacies that satisfy patient pharmacy location preference and/or are covered under any patient healthcare plan, Ele. 450, Deliver, to patient device/computer, presentation of pharmacy locations, cost data, and any incentives; Paragraph 149).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells and Iyer with John with the motivation of “ …controlling rising healthcare costs …” and provide “… significant savings in managing the costs of prescription drugs or products” (John, see at least Paragraphs 4-5).
Claim 11 recites substantially similar of non-transitory computer-readable media limitations to those of non-transitory computer-readable media claim 3 and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 4:
The combination of Wells/Iyer/John discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations, but Iyer as shown does:
wherein the local pharmacy options are further determined based on the one or more medical parameters (see at least Paragraph 13, The claimed invention can identify types and locations of healthcare providers to be utilized. The directory can be compiled and mapped using a GPS or other location determination techniques of a smartphone or other computing device; Paragraph 41, The pharmacy detail database 125 is configured to search for local pharmacies using the GPS or other location determining circuitry of the smartphone, browser or zip code entered by user. The pharmacy detail database 125 is also configured to determine the name, logo, address, phone number, store hours and other relevant details of over 60,000 pharmacies. The pharmacy detail database 125 also includes the longitude and latitude of each pharmacy to enable GPS or location search).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells and John with Iyer for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2.
Claim 5:
The combination of Wells/Iyer/John discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells further discloses the following limitations:
receive at least a portion of a prescription name (see at least Fig. 8, County; FIG. 7 illustrates an example screen of a GUI 700 that user interface module 231 may provide to client 210. Health insurance companies often set premiums for their plans using price curves that vary based on age, location and tobacco use, among other factors; Fig. 12, Prescription name; Fig. 14, Rx prescriptions; Paragraphs 4-6, graphical user interface (GUI));
provide a list of medical formularies based on the portion of the prescription name (see at least Fig. 8, County; FIG. 7 illustrates an example screen of a GUI 700 that user interface module 231 may provide to client 210. Health insurance companies often set premiums for their plans using price curves that vary based on age, location and tobacco use, among other factors; Fig. 12, Prescription name; Fig. 14, Rx prescriptions; Paragraphs 4-6, graphical user interface (GUI)).
Claims 16 and 20 recites substantially similar of non-transitory computer-readable media and method limitations to those of non-transitory computer-readable media claim 5 and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 6:
The combination of Wells/Iyer/John discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations, but Iyer as shown does:
receiving, by the graphical user interface, an input indicating a local pharmacy associated with the user, wherein the local pharmacy options include the local pharmacy associated with the user (see at least Fig. 3B, Medvana locates the best price nearby, across 50,000 pharmacies; Fig. 3E; Fig. 3F; Fig. 3G; Fig. 3K, The selected drug and pharmacy have been saved; Paragraph 98, Pharmacy detail page FIG. 3G also shows Store button 339 that can be selected by a user to store the selected drug and pharmacy information displayed. When a user selects store button 339, store/save screen FIG. 3K is shown on display 418 of the user device 301 and in block S11, and the prescription drug search information is stored in the user profile and saved items database 133 using saving module 227. Pharmacy detail page FIG. 3G also shows email button 341 that can be selected by a user to send an email message regarding the selected drug and pharmacy information displayed as well as the discount information).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells and John with Iyer for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2.
Claim 13:
The combination of Wells/Iyer/John discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations, but Iyer as shown does:
wherein the local pharmacy options are further determined based on cost (see at least Fig. 3B, Medvana locates the best price nearby, across 50,000 pharmacies; Fig. 3E; Fig. 3F; Fig. 3G; Fig. 3K, The selected drug and pharmacy have been saved; Paragraph 98, Pharmacy detail page FIG. 3G also shows Store button 339 that can be selected by a user to store the selected drug and pharmacy information displayed. When a user selects store button 339, store/save screen FIG. 3K is shown on display 418 of the user device 301 and in block S11, and the prescription drug search information is stored in the user profile and saved items database 133 using saving module 227. Pharmacy detail page FIG. 3G also shows email button 341 that can be selected by a user to send an email message regarding the selected drug and pharmacy information displayed as well as the discount information).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells and John with Iyer for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2.
Claim 19:
The combination of Wells/Iyer discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations, but John as shown does:
receiving, by the graphical user interface and from the user, input of at least one preferred pharmacy (see at least Paragraph 151, For example, the pharmacy location preferences can specify a current location that needs to be obtained from the patient 115. In this case, the service provider computer 204 and/or virtual pharmacy module 205 may deliver a request 320 for a location to a patient device/computer 206 of the patient 115. In an example embodiment of the invention, the request 320 may request a current location of the patient 115. Alternatively, the current location may be one that is entered by a patient 115 using an I/O interface 262 (e.g., keypad, touch screen, etc.) of the patient device/computer 206. For example, a patient 115 can enter a location such as a street address, city, state, and/or zip code, or any portion thereof. The patient 115 can also enter a specified distance/radius from the specified location.; Paragraph 156, The address or location information can also identify a distance from a desired location, as specified by the pharmacy location preferences of the patient 115; Paragraph 163, One or more preferred pharmacies specified by the patient 115 As an example, a predetermined number of pharmacies may be prioritized on the list higher based upon distance as a primary consideration, and price or cost as a secondary consideration. Alternatively, one or more pharmacies on the list may be prioritized based upon price or cost as the sole or primary consideration, and distance as a secondary consideration);
determining a list of pharmacies based on the geographic location parameters and the one or more medical parameters (see at least Fig. 4, Ele. 430, Determine actual pharmacies that satisfy patient pharmacy location preference and/or are covered under any patient healthcare plan, Ele. 450, Deliver, to patient device/computer, presentation of pharmacy locations, cost data, and any incentives; Paragraph 150, Specified Location and Distance/Radius: Specifies an address, or any portion thereof (e.g., a zip code), for purposes of locating dispensing pharmacies 120a-n within proximity to the specified address or portion thereof; Paragraph 156, The address or location information can also identify a distance from a desired location, as specified by the pharmacy location preferences of the patient 115); and
providing, by the graphical user interface, the list of pharmacies including the at least one preferred pharmacy (see at least Fig. 4, Ele. 430, Determine actual pharmacies that satisfy patient pharmacy location preference and/or are covered under any patient healthcare plan, Ele. 450, Deliver, to patient device/computer, presentation of pharmacy locations, cost data, and any incentives; Paragraph 149; Paragraph 150; Paragraph 163, One or more preferred pharmacies specified by the patient 115 As an example, a predetermined number of pharmacies may be prioritized on the list higher based upon distance as a primary consideration, and price or cost as a secondary consideration. Alternatively, one or more pharmacies on the list may be prioritized based upon price or cost as the sole or primary consideration, and distance as a secondary consideration).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells and Iyer with John for at least the same reasons as given for claim 3.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0225096 A1 to Wells et al. view of U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0039911 A1 to Iyer and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2018/0075212 A1 to Kubey.
Claim 8:
The combination of Wells/Iyer discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more medical parameters comprises an identification of one or more prescription medicines (see at least Fig. 12, Prescription name; Fig. 14, Rx prescriptions; Paragraph 55, A second mechanism for entering health condition information involves the manual entry of prescription drugs a patient is taking and the associated cost, primary doctor visits per year and the associated cost, and/or specialist visits per year and the associated cost. An example of such a mechanism is depicted in FIGS. 11-14),
Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations, but Iyer as shown does:
wherein determining the plan options comprises: identifying a lowest-cost pharmacy having a minimum total cost for the one or more prescription medicines (see at least Fig. 3F; Paragraph 91, Fig. 3F show a listing of local pharmacies at which the entered drug can be purchased), and
determining the plan options based at least in part on the pharmacy having the minimum total cost for the one or more prescription medicines (see at least Fig. 3F, generic; Fig. 3L, generic; Paragraphs 9-10, effectively and efficiently explore lower cost treatment alternatives when faced with high prescription medication costs” and “… to determine, compare, locate and manage prescribed treatments including prescription drugs and other medical treatments; Paragraph 43; Paragraph 91, Fig. 3F show a listing of local pharmacies at which the entered drug can be purchased; Paragraph 101, For example, a user can choose to limit the search to brand name only drugs or to expand the search to include brand name and generic drugs)
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells with Iyer for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2.
Wells may or may not disclose the following limitations but Kubey as shown does:
identifying a lowest-cost pharmacy having a minimum total cost for the one or more prescription medicines (see at least Paragraph 52, number of pharmacies to consider if patient medication list includes more than one medication (e.g. whether a patient is willing/able to go to a single pharmacy, two, three or more); Paragraph 81, Total costs of the medications listed on the reports (e.g., from the different pharmacies) can also be included to enhance a user's (e.g., provider's and/or patient's) ability to effectively compare prices from the different pharmacies; Paragraph 108, In response, the tool can provide reports listing pharmacies within predetermined distances of the patient's desired fulfillment location and the prices of the medications at those pharmacies. The lowest-cost pharmacies for fulfillment of the as-written prescription can thereby be determined); and
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells and Iyer with Kubey with the motivation to help the individual whereby “.. the lowest-cost pharmacies for fulfillment of the as-written prescription can thereby be determined” (Kubey see at least Paragraph 108).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0225096 A1 to Wells et al. view of U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0039911 A1 to Iyer in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2012/0253829 A1 to John et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0065862 A1 to Siegel.
Claim 12:
The combination of Wells/Iyer/John discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Wells further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one preferred pharmacy provides alternative medications that have a similar therapeutic effect (see at least Paragraph 29; Paragraph 35, a user may change the selected pharmacy to an updated pharmacy at any time (e.g., during a refill opportunity) based on, for example, a change in location, insurance, pricing, preference, or the like; Paragraph 38, enable a user to easily determine costs of a treatment or product, with and/or without coverage, determine potential generic versions that may be cheaper, determine potential alternative prescription therapies, transfer prescriptions to different pharmacy locations, add or change insurance information/coverage plans, submit prescription refills to different pharmacy locations; Paragraph 85, a user may select a pharmacy and may be directed to an electronic confirmation page where details about the pharmacy (e.g., location, hours of operation, distance, etc.) as well as the treatment (e.g., medicine name, quantity, strength, etc.), may be provided. The user may confirm the information and, upon confirmation, finalize the selection of the pharmacy).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wells, Iyer and John with Siegel with the motivation “… to optimize pharmacy selection for medical treatments, based on a prescription and on user information” (Siegel, see at least Paragraph 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 571.272.8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights