DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
This application’s status as a continuation of 17/992,652, which is a continuation of 16/159,471, which is a continuation of 14/776,614, which is a 371 of PCT/US2014/026660, with corresponding claim of priority to provisional patent application 61/786,076 (filed 3/14/2013) is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1 and 5-10 include text that is illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine), claims 9-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a manufacture), and claims 17-20 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g. managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people. Specifically, claim 1 (as representative) recites:
a network interface that includes a receiver and a transmitter, the receiver configured to receive an electronic prescription and patient information over a communications network and the transmitter configured to prepare data for transmission over the communications network;
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the network interface, the at least one processor configured to:
receive, using the at least one processor, a first patient question, a second patient question, and a third patient question from one or more patients via a user interface;
route, using the network interface having the transmitter and in response to determining the first patient question received from the one or more patients via the user interface is to be directed to an insurance benefits manager via the communications network, the first patient question electronically to a computing system of the insurance benefits manager via a healthcare hub;
route, using the network interface having the transmitter and in response to determining the second patient question received from the one or more patients via the user interface is to be directed to a professional health services representative via the communications network, the second patient question electronically to a computing system of the professional health services representative via the healthcare hub; and
route, using the network interface having the transmitter and in response to determining the third patient question received from the one or more patients via the user interface is to be directed to a suggested pharmacy via the communications network, the third patient question electronically to a computing system of the suggested pharmacy via the healthcare hub.
But for the recitation of generic computer components like a network interface, including a receiver and transmitter, at least one processor, a user interface, a communications network, and computing systems, the italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe a medical question categorization and routing operation that could be achieved by a human actor such as a central dispatcher managing their personal behavior and/or interactions with others. For example, the dispatcher could communicate with a patient to solicit information about the patient and any current prescriptions, as well as any clinically-relevant questions the patient may have. The dispatcher could then categorize each question as being relevant to different clinical entities, including an insurance benefits manager, a professional health services representative, and a pharmacy, and route/forward the questions to appropriate users at each entity. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity. Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 1 and are found to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under the Step 2A – Prong 1 analysis. In addition, claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 recite additional limitations that further describe the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. Specifically, claims 2, 10, and 18 recite transmitting answers to each of the three questions back to the patient, which further describes question-and-answer interactions among human actors. Claims 4, 12, and 20 recite managing and presenting the prescription of one or more patients, which describe pharmaceutical management operations that could occur by and among human actors. Claims 6-8 and 14-16 recite accessing pricing data comprising prices of goods at participating pharmacies from a pricing database, suggesting a pharmacy based on proximity and the price data, and sending the prescription to the suggested pharmacy for fulfillment, which describe pharmaceutical management and recommendation operations among human clinical entities.
However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the analysis. Each of the claims must be analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 include a network interface that includes a receiver and a transmitter, the receiver configured to receive electronic data over a communications network and the transmitter configured to prepare data for transmission of over the communications network; at least one processor to perform the receiving and routing functions; a user interface to input the patient questions; and use of the network interface and communications network to electronically route the questions to computing systems of each clinical entity via a healthcare hub. These additional elements, when considered in the context of each claim as a whole, merely serve to automate interactions that could occur between human actors (as described above), and thus amount to instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For example, a patient and central dispatcher can communicate to come up with at least three patient questions, and the dispatcher can interact with personnel like an insurance benefits manager, professional health services representative, and pharmacist to provide the appropriate questions to the appropriate entities and solicit answers to deliver back to the patient. The use of computerized infrastructure including a network interface with a receiver and transmitter, communications network, processor, user interface, computing systems of each clinical entity, and unspecified healthcare hub merely digitize and/or automate the roles and interactions of the human actors such that the otherwise-abstract solicitation, categorization, and routing of patient questions and answers among different clinical entities occur within an electronic computing environment. Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 17 as a whole are each directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
The judicial exception recited in dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 is also not integrated into a practical application under a similar analysis as above. Claims 2, 10, and 18 recite using the processor and communications network to transmit answers from the computing systems to the user interface of the patient so that they are viewable via the healthcare hub, while claims 3, 11, and 19 recite that the healthcare hub is configured to facilitate access to the answers for the patients via the user interface. These features again merely digitize and/or automate the sharing of question-and-answer data to facilitate viewing in an electronic environment, and thus amount to instructions to “apply” the judicial exception. Claims 4, 12, and 20 recite that the healthcare hub is configured to manage and present the electronic prescription, which again merely digitizes and/or automates the otherwise-abstract functions of managing and sharing prescription data and thus amount to instructions to “apply” the judicial exception. Claims 5 and 13 recites that the healthcare hub is configured to facilitate coordination between the user interface and the computing systems of the entities, which again merely digitizes and/or automates the otherwise-abstract functions of coordinating interactions between human entities such that they occur via digital infrastructure. Claims 6 and 14 recite that the processor and communications network access a remotely accessible database of pricing data, which merely digitizes and/or automates the otherwise-abstract function of looking up stored pricing data such that it occurs remotely in an electronic environment. Claims 7-8 and 15-16 recite using the processor and communications network to suggest a pharmacy and electronically send the prescription to a computing system of the suggested pharmacy, which again merely digitizes and/or automates the otherwise-abstract functions of making recommendations about suggested pharmacies based on various criteria and sharing prescription data with the pharmacy for fulfillment such that they occur in an electronic environment.
Accordingly, the additional elements of claims 1-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a network interface that includes a receiver and a transmitter, at least one processor, a user interface, a communications network, computing systems of each clinical entity, and a healthcare hub for performing the receiving, routing, transmitting, facilitating, managing, presenting, accessing, selecting, sending, etc. steps of the invention amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As evidence of the generic nature of the above recited additional elements, Examiner notes the following portions of Applicant’s specification:
[0003]: “Computing systems can include a processor, a memory, a storage device, and input/output devices. The processor, the memory, the storage device, and the input/output devices can be interconnected via a system bus. The processor is capable of processing instructions for execution within the computing system. Such executed instructions can implement one or more components of, for example, a cloud platform. The computing system may include input/output devices that can provide input/output operations for a network device. For example, the input/output device can include Ethernet ports or other networking ports to communicate with one or more wired and/or wireless networks (e.g., a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), the Internet) or hardware or software implemented communications switches placed within the networked environment.”
[0004]: “In conventional network systems, computing systems select one repository for storing data in one logical database across a network. Conventional computing systems typically retrieve data from and store data on their own systems. A computing system may remotely access one of a plurality of server systems across a network that might in tum access the database system. Data retrieval from the system might include the issuance of a request from the user system to the database system. The database system may process the request for information and send to the user system information relevant to the request. The rapid and efficient retrieval of accurate information is critical to routing claims over a computer network environment in which a plurality of computing systems access and retrieve data from a plurality of databases coupled to a communications network.”
[0082]: “In various embodiments, the healthcare hub 102 is formed of one or more servers or other computers.”
[0083]: “The communication link 120 of some embodiments includes an internet connection. In other embodiments, the communication link 120 may be a telephonic or facsimile connection.”
[0086]: “In some embodiments, the communication links 122, 124, and/or 125 may be telephonic or facsimile connections. In a preferred embodiment, one or more of the communication links 122, 124, and 125 are web-based and/or internet-based connections.”
[0090]: “The system 200 includes a communication network 210 through which some or all of the various devices communicate with one another. In some embodiments, a plurality of the devices are configured to transmit information to, and receive information from a server (i.e., the healthcare hub) 250 via the communication network 210. The network can be a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN). In some embodiments, the network is a wireless communication network to which at least some of the devices are connected, such as, for example, a mobile WiMAX network, LIE network, Wi-Fi network, or other wireless network. In other embodiments, the communication between at least some of the system devices and the server 250 occurs over the Internet via a wired network, such as a DSL cable connection, or over Ethernet or an intranet.”
[0091]: “In various embodiments, the system is accessible to users of the system via user workstations, such as provider workstations 220, supplier workstations 230, and patient workstations 240. The workstations may be specialized computers configured solely for connection to the system 200, or they may be generalized computers made to perform specialized functions through its connection to the system 200. For example, in some embodiments, the various workstations 220, 230, and 240 are desktop computers, laptop computers, and/or mobile devices such as tablets, smartphones, or wearable computing devices.”
[0096]: “As depicted in Figure 2, the various devices of the system 200 interact with the network 210, and accordingly, each other, via a two-way (forward and reverse) communication link. The devices each include input/output devices for wired communication connections (e.g., modems, network cards, external data buses, ports, etc.) and/or wireless receivers and transmitters, which allow each device to transmit and receive information. Exemplary information exchanged by the various components is described in more detail below. These are examples only, and various other information exchanges are conceived and expressly contemplated herein.”
[0103]: “The processor 310 can be a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any suitable combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein.”
[0107]: “The processor 310 is also coupled to an input device 330 and an output device 340 for, respectively, receiving input from and providing output to, a system administrator of the healthcare needs fulfillment system 300. Suitable input devices include, but are not limited to, a keyboard, buttons, keys, switches, a pointing device, a mouse, a joystick, a remote control, an infrared detector, a video camera (possibly coupled with video processing software to, e.g., detect hand gestures or facial gestures), a motion detector, and a microphone (possibly coupled to audio processing software to, e.g., detect voice commands). Suitable output devices include, but are not limited to, visual output devices, including displays and printers, audio output devices, including speakers, headphones, earphones, and alarms, and haptic output devices, including force-feedback game controllers and vibrating devices.”
[0108]: “The processor 310 may be further coupled to a network interface 350, including a receiver 352 and a transmitter 354. The transmitter 354, in conjunction with the network interface 350, prepares data generated by the processor 310 for transmission over a communication network according to one or more network standards. The receiver 352, in conjunction with the network interface 350, demodulates data received over a communication network according to one or more network standards. In one embodiment, the transmitter 354 and the receiver 352 are part of the same component, such as, for example, a transceiver. In other embodiments, the transmitter 354 and receiver 52 are two separate components.”
[0147]: “The various illustrative logical blocks, modules, and circuits described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented or performed with a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. A general purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine.”
These disclosures do not indicate that the elements of the invention are particular machines, and instead provide high-level examples of existing computer infrastructure, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that any generic computing system connecting processor-based computing workstations via a communications network could be used to implement the invention.
Further, the combination of these additional hardware elements is not expanded upon in the specification as a unique arrangement and as such relies on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the combination of components within a computer system as a well-known and generic combination for automating an abstract idea that could otherwise be performed as a certain method of organizing human activity and thus do not provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the combination of multiple computing devices representing human actors within a clinical ecosystem and communicating via a computerized hub device with receivers and transmitters to provide clinical management services is a well-understood, routine, and generic combination, as evidenced by at least Brinkman et al. (US 20050065818 A1) Figs. 1-2 & 5-9, [0062]-[0070]; Gingrich et al. (US 20040006490 A1) Figs. 1 & 5-10, [0033]-[0038]; and Howe et al. (US 20100057489 A1) Figs. 1-2, [0053]-[0054], [0073]. Examiner further notes that receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions performed using generic computer components, as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Analyzing these additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the elements individually; the overall effect of the network interface, receiver, transmitter, communications network, processor, user interface, various computing systems, and healthcare hub in combination is to digitize and/or automate a medical question categorization and routing operation that could otherwise be achieved as a certain method of organizing human activity. Thus, when considered as a whole and in combination, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 112(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application file din the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 12-13, 17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Brinkman et al. (US 20050065818 A1).
Claims 1, 9, and 17
Brinkman teaches a system for routing electronic prescriptions, the system comprising:
a network interface that includes a receiver and a transmitter (Brinkman Fig. 6, [0062]-[0066], noting the system includes a network of computers in communication with each other via communication means, e.g. communication port 574 (considered equivalent to a network interface that includes a receiver and a transmitter because that is how computer communications work); see also Fig. 6, showing optional infrared receiver and infrared transmitter), the receiver configured to receive an electronic prescription and patient information over a communications network (Brinkman [0072], [0074], noting an operator computer (i.e. a computer with the communication port and/or receiver as in Fig. 6) may receive patient information from a member profile database including name, address, health benefit plan information, etc., as well as prescription information, i.e. an electronic prescription) and the transmitter configured to prepare data for transmission over the communications network (Brinkman Fig. 6, [0062]-[0066], noting the computers in the system communicate with each other via a network, indicating that the data that is transmitted between them has been prepared in some manner for transmission over the network);
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the network interface (Brinkman Fig. 6, [0064], noting CPU performs the logic operations of the system by executing programs stored in memory), the at least one processor configured to:
receive, using the at least one processor, a first patient question, a second patient question, and a third patient question from one or more patients via a user interface (Brinkman [0068], [0074], [0087], noting a caller (e.g. a patient member of a health plan) may utilize a telephone or computing device (i.e. a user interface) to connect with the system and ask health-related questions; as shown in Fig. 8 & [0087]-[0089], there may be at least three types of operators who can answer three different types of questions, indicating that the system can receive first, second, and third patient questions from one or more patients accessing the system from their user interfaces);
route, using the network interface having the transmitter and in response to determining the first patient question received from the one or more patients via the user interface is to be directed to an insurance benefits manager via the communications network, the first patient question electronically to a computing system of the insurance benefits manager via a healthcare hub (Brinkman Figs. 8-9, [0068]-[0070], [0087]-[0089], noting the system acts as a hub that determines the appropriate operator to handle the patient inquiry and routes the call to the computing device of the selected operator, e.g. to a health benefit operator 909 as in [0089]);
route, using the network interface having the transmitter and in response to determining the second patient question received from the one or more patients via the user interface is to be directed to a professional health services representative via the communications network, the second patient question electronically to a computing system of the professional health services representative via the healthcare hub (Brinkman Figs. 8-9, [0068]-[0070], [0087]-[0089], noting the system acts as a hub that determines the appropriate operator to handle the patient inquiry and routes the call to the computing device of the selected operator, e.g. to a medical operator 907 as in [0089]); and
route, using the network interface having the transmitter and in response to determining the third patient question received from the one or more patients via the user interface is to be directed to a suggested pharmacy via the communications network, the third patient question electronically to a computing system of the suggested pharmacy via the healthcare hub (Brinkman Figs. 8-9, [0068]-[0070], [0087]-[0089], noting the system acts as a hub that determines the appropriate operator to handle the patient inquiry and routes the call to the computing device of the selected operator, e.g. to a pharmacy operator 908 as in [0089]).
Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 1, and are also rejected as above.
Claims 4, 12, and 20
Brinkman teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the healthcare hub is configured to manage and present the electronic prescription of the one or more patients (Brinkman [0094], noting the patient’s prescriptions may be refilled/renewed (i.e. managed and presented)).
Claims 12 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 4, and are also rejected as above.
Claims 5 and 13
Brinkman teaches the system of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the healthcare hub is configured to facilitate coordination between the user interface and the computing system of the insurance benefits manager, the computing system of the professional health services representative, and the computing system of the suggested pharmacy (Brinkman Fig. 8, [0087]-[0089], noting the system acts as a hub for routing and coordinating communications between the caller’s device and operator devices associated with any of a health benefit operator 909 (i.e. insurance benefits manager), medical operator 907 (i.e. professional health services representative), and pharmacy operator 908).
Claim 13 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 5, and is also rejected as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brinkman.
Claims 2, 10, and 18
Brinkman teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, using the processor and via the communications network, a first answer responsive to the first patient question from the computing system of the insurance benefits manager, a second answer responsive to the second patient question from the computing system of the professional health services representative, and a third answer responsive to the third patient question from the computing system of the suggested pharmacy, to the user interface in a format through which the first answer, the second answer, and the third answer are (Brinkman [0074], noting the selected operator(s) (e.g. the respective three types described in [0089]) provide analysis and advice (i.e. answers) to the patient(s) at their respective device(s) over the network communication responsive to their inquiry).
In summary, Brinkman teaches a system where a patient may receive advice and answers to clinical inquiries from at least three types of operators at a user interface device (e.g. via a telephone call). However, Brinkman fails to explicitly disclose that the answers are in a viewable format as required by the instant claim. However, Brinkman does contemplate that the patient caller may interface with the system via non-voice means such as direct computer connection (see [0068]) and/or via a caller terminal device capable of visually displaying data that is normally presented audibly (see [0070], noting that prerecorded messages that a typical telephone user would listen to may be presented to non-voice users via a display at the caller’s terminal). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of invention, to modify other information that is normally audibly presented to the caller (e.g. the operator advice and answers to questions) such that it is in a viewable format in order to accommodate patient callers who utilize non-voice means of accessing the system (as suggested by Brinkman [0070]).
Claims 10 and 18 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 2, and are also rejected as above.
Claims 3, 11, and 19
Brinkman teaches the system of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the healthcare hub configured to facilitate access to the first answer, the second answer, and the third answer for the one or more patients via the user interface (Brinkman [0074], noting the selected operator(s) (e.g. the respective three types described in [0089]) provide analysis and advice (i.e. answers) to the patient(s) at their respective device(s) over the network communication).
Claims 11 and 19 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 3, and are also rejected as above.
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brinkman as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Zecchini (US 20120054119 A1).
Claims 6 and 14
Brinkman teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: access, using the at least one processor and via the communications network, a database of (Brinkman [0072], [0075], noting the system may access information stored in various types of databases accessible over the network).
However, Brinkman fails to explicitly disclose that the accessed databases include a database of pricing data stored remotely, which comprises prices of goods at a plurality of participating pharmacies. However, Zecchini teaches an analogous healthcare management system that includes the ability to access a remote pharmaceutical pricing database storing prices of goods at a plurality of participating pharmacies (Zecchini [0019], [0035], noting drug pricing information for each of a plurality of searchable (i.e. participating) pharmacies is accessed (e.g. from a commercial database service, considered equivalent to a remotely stored database) so that pharmacy selection decisions can be made). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of invention, to modify the databases storing data relevant for healthcare and prescription management as in Brinkman to also include a remotely accessible pharmaceutical pricing database as in Zecchini so that pricing and cost information about multiple potential pharmacies may be made available to use as a basis for selecting a suitable pharmacy for the patient (as suggested by Zecchini [0035]).
Claim 14 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 6, and is also rejected as above.
Claims 7 and 15
Brinkman in view of Zecchini teaches the system of claim 6, and the combination further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: select, using the at least one processor, the suggested pharmacy accessible to the one or more patients by evaluating the plurality of participating pharmacies at least in part on proximity to the one or more patients and the prices of goods (Zecchini [0035], noting a pharmacy is selected based on location/proximity and drug pricing information).
Claim 15 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 7, and is also rejected as above.
Claims 8 and 16
Brinkman in view of Zecchini teaches the system of claim 7, and the combination further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: send, using the at least one processor and via the communications network, the prescription electronically to the computing system of the suggested pharmacy for fulfillment (Brinkman [0078], noting the system may deliver a prescription to a pharmacy for fulfillment (e.g. the pharmacy selected based on proximity and pricing information when considered in the context of the combination with Zecchini); see also Zecchini [0035], noting that a request to fill a prescription may be sent to the selected pharmacy).
Claim 16 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 8, and is also rejected as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Howe et al. (US 20100057489 A1) describes a PBM system for routing healthcare need requests to appropriate healthcare suppliers such as pharmacies selected based on price and proximity information. Gingrich et al. (US 20040006490 A1) describes an exchange hub to manage pharmaceutical requests among prescribers, pharmacies, and PBMs. Villena et al. (US 6832203 B1) and Jones et al. (US 20120185484 A1) describe systems for routing user requests to appropriate agents/assistants equipped to handle the type of request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN A HRANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-1679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 ET.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/KAREN A HRANEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights