DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on July 17, 2026. Claims 1 and 7-9 have been amended. Claims 4-5 have been cancelled. Claims 10-17 have been added. Claims 1-3 and 6-17 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
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.
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 1-3 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-3 and 6-17 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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to a system, independent claim 8 is directed to a method, and independent claim 9 is directed to a nontransitory recording medium.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claims 1, 8, and 9 recite the limitation, “acquire the medication-related information group from a captured image” is directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior. In particular, the limitation is directed to managing personal behavior with respect to managing a patient’s medical prescriptions in order have medication available for consumption based on captured image.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field have not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of a first information processing apparatus, a second processing apparatus, first circuitry, second circuitry, non-transitory record medium, storage devices, input devices, display device, communication devices, other devices, encryption key, and medicine dispensing apparatus amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-7, and 10-17 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. Dependent claim 6-7 recite a “first circuitry”, “second circuitry”, “first information processing apparatus”, and “second information processing apparatus”, dependent claims 12-13, 16, and 17 recite a “first information processing apparatus” and “second information processing apparatus”. Dependent claims 6-7, 12-13, and 16-17 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
wherein the first circuitry of the first information processing apparatus is configured to generate the code image in which the medication-related information group having been encrypted is encoded,
wherein the second circuitry of the second information processing apparatus is configured to decrypt information read from the captured image to acquire the medication-related information group,
wherein the first circuitry is configured to generate the code image in which the medication-related information group having been encrypted using second facility identification information as an encryption key is encoded, the second facility identification information being identification information for identifying the second facility,
wherein the second information processing apparatus is configured to transmit the medication-related information group after decryption by the second circuitry to a medicine dispensing apparatus communicatively coupled with the second information processing apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. According to applicant’s argument on page 2 of the remarks discloses, “…Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 8, and 9 to incorporate the encryption/decryption recitations of claims 4 and 5 and claims 4 and 5 are cancelled. In addition, independent claims 1, 8, and 9 are amended to recite: "the second information processing apparatus is configured to transmit the medication-related information group after decryption by the second circuitry to a medicine dispensing apparatus communicatively coupled with the second information processing apparatus." A medicine dispensing apparatus is disclosed as a device that partially automates the process for dispensing drugs to a group of patients in a hospital or nursing home environment. Spec. paragraph 52. Encrypting and decrypting the medication information enhances security of such personal information as it is exchanged between a pharmacy and a patient facility - improving the technology of securing patient information - a practical application. Further, transmitting the decrypted information to a medicine dispensing apparatus that automates in part the dispensing of the medication - improving the technology of patient care by reducing the potential for human error by a caregiver - a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that encryption and decryption of data or information is typically used to protect and safeguard important and private information in all technological fields. Therefore, it is not a practical application under an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
The applicant has added the limitation, “wherein the second information processing apparatus is configured to transmit the medication-related information group after decryption by the second circuitry to a medicine dispensing apparatus communicatively coupled with the second information processing apparatus.” to independent claims 1, 8, and 9. According to applicant’s arguments, the medical dispensing apparatus partially automates the process of dispensing drugs to a group of patients and the transmittal of decrypted information reduces potential for human error by a caregiver improves the technology. The examiner notes the claimed improvements are not recited/reflected in the independent claims. Additionally, the claims do not provide specific details/technical steps of how the improvement is performed or carried out.
B. According to applicant’s argument on pages 2-3 of the remarks disclose, “Further, Applicant points to Example 42 of the Office's published examples discussing patentability. In Example 42, a claim is directed to a method of allowing users to receive updates of patient records from other users (i.e., a method of organizing human behavior). Similar to Example 42, the systems and method of the present claims improve the technology of patient care related to medicine dispensing by encrypting and decrypting information exchanged between the pharmacy and the patient care facility (e.g., hospital or nursing home) and transmitting the decrypted information to a medicine dispensing apparatus to partially automate the dispensing of medicine to patients (thus reducing the potential for human error.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant’s independent claims 1, 8, and 9 are not similar to Example 42. Example 42 is directed to a method for transmission of notifications when medical records are updated. The applicant’s invention is directed to generating by a pharmacy, an encoded prescription code for a plurality of individuals taking a medication, printing, by the pharmacy the encoded prescription code attached to the medication, transmitting the medication to a nursing home, decrypting the encoded prescription code by the nursing home, and transmitting the decrypted information to a medicine dispensing apparatus. Example 42 was found to be integrated into a practical application because it recited the improvement of sharing information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. The applicant’s independent claims do not recite such improvement. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn (with respect to a system reciting physical structures).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Collosi US Publication 20030125986 A1 Prescription Dispensing Device
Collosi discloses a method and apparatus is disclosed for generating a prescription for medication. The method comprises the steps of inputting patient information and subsequently displaying a list of authorized medications for that patient. The physician selects a specific medication to dispense from the list and enters a number for the required quantity of the medication. A respective prescription for the medication is printed. The prescription includes pertinent information in a readable format as well as in a bar code, wherein the bar code can also include identifiers and encryption keys for anti-forgery and security.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm 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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571)270-5096. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights