DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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. Dependent claim 5 lacks a relational indication to another claim (missing claim number).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract
idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-11 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, Claims 1-11 are
nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is representative of the inventive concept and recites:
A method for operating an interactive voice response (IVR) and a fulfillment system for automating refills and delivery scheduling of medication comprising:
requesting, from a user, a plurality of identification information to perform health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA) verification;
comparing the plurality of identification information to user information in a user database to verify the user;
if the user is verified, requesting medication information from the user related to a medication prescription;
providing the user with at least one shipment date based on the medication information and a handling capacity of the fulfillment system on the at least one shipment date;
in response to acceptance of the at least one shipment date by the user, determining an estimated delivery date for the medication prescription;
providing the user a notification with confirmation of the at least one shipment date and the estimated delivery date;
and shipping the medication prescription to the user on the at least one shipment date.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
comparing and determining) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer
components/functions such as “system”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The recitation of generic computer components/functions of requesting, providing, and shipping also covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. a computer and user interface), and/or managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions – in this case a person is able to physically follow the steps to collect and
analyze data), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claims 2-11 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or
defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “interactive voice response (IVR) and a fulfillment system”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
• Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of
are recited as being performed by a “system”. A computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
• Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “interactive voice response (IVR)”.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited
in independent claim 1, and hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a
practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not
already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the
combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Their
collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a
meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A system in claim 1; amount to no
more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional
limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which amount to
elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular
fields as demonstrated by the recitation of:
Interactive voice response (IVR), which refers to an automated business phone technology that interacts with callers, gathers information, and routes calls without needing a live human agent (Para 0005, Glass(US 20150350446 A1) discloses: “ Conventional IVR systems as described herein allow users to interface with the host computer system by means of a series of simple interactions.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited
in independent claim 1. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the
abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount
to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of
use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1,
hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Rosomoff(US20230099084A1) in view of Figgers(US20250372249A1) and DiVenuta(US20090262909A1).
Claim 1
Rosomoff discloses:
A method for operating an and a fulfillment system for automating refills and delivery scheduling of medication(Figure 11, Rosomoff discloses automating refills and delivery scheduling) comprising: requesting, from a user, a plurality of (Figure 11, Rosomoff discloses the receipt of prescription); providing the user with at least one shipment date based on the medication information and a handling capacity of the fulfillment system on the at least one shipment date(Para 0131, Rosomoff discloses determining delivery date based fulfillment system); in response to acceptance of the at least one shipment date by the user(Para 0123, Rosomoff discloses a user confirming delivery date), determining an estimated delivery date for the medication prescription(Para 0123, Rosomoff discloses the delivery date is updated once user confirms the date); providing the user a notification with confirmation of the at least one shipment date and the estimated delivery date(Para 0135 Rosomoff discloses a notification of delivery date); and shipping the medication prescription to the user on the at least one shipment date(Para 0135 Rosomoff discloses a notification of delivery date, which embodies the intention of shipping on the notified delivery date).
Rosomoff does not explicitly disclose:
interactive voice response (IVR)
identification information to perform health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA) verification
comparing the plurality of identification information to user information in a user database to verify the user
Figgers discloses:
identification information to perform health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA) verification(Para 0039, Figgers discloses HIPPA verification)
comparing the plurality of identification information to user information in a user database to verify the user(Para 0044, Figgers discloses verification using a database)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dynamic user interface generation for delivery scheduling optimization of Rosomoff to add identification information to perform health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA) verification and comparing the plurality of identification information to user information in a user database to verify the user, as taught by Figgers. One of ordinary skill
would have been so motivated to verify users having access to PHI to maintain patient privacy, but in this case for a telemedicine system(Para 0004, Figgers discloses: “ Current telemedicine systems do not incorporate artificial intelligence and machine learning to analyze patient requests and provide appropriate responses. This limits the system's ability to offer timely, accurate, and proactive healthcare guidance, often resulting in delayed or inadequate medical advice.”).
Figgers does not explicitly disclose:
interactive voice response (IVR)
DiVenuta discloses:
interactive voice response (IVR)(Figure 1, DiVenuta discloses IVR)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dynamic user interface generation for delivery scheduling optimization of Rosomoff to add IVR, as taught by DiVenuta. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide automated customer service to schedule medication deliveries, but in this case for a pharmacy IVR system(Para 0003, DiVenuta discloses: “IVR systems are widely used to disseminate and provide information to telephone callers through automated sequences of voice prompts and menu options. IVR systems can allow callers to perform various transactions without the need for direct assistance from a customer service representative or associate in healthcare settings”).
Claim 2
Rosomoff discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of identification information includes a name(Para 0110 Rosomoff discloses user name), a zip code(Para 0110, Rosomoff discloses address), or a date of birth.
Claim 3
Rosomoff discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one shipment date is not a holiday date or a weekend date(Para 0036, Rosomoff discloses the user scheduling a delivery date based on preference).
Claim 4
Rosomoff discloses:
The method according to claim 3, further comprising: providing the user with another shipment date if the estimated delivery date is on a weekend or a holiday(Para 0034, Rosomoff discloses adjusting delivery dates based on preferences); and updating the notification to include another shipment date(Para 0135 Rosomoff discloses a notification of delivery date).
Claim 5
Rosomoff discloses:
The method according to claim, wherein the at least one shipment date is further based on a medication associated with the medication prescription(Figure 4A, Rosomoff discloses shipment date based on medication associated with a prescription).
Claim 7
Rosomoff discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the estimated delivery date is based on previous shipments to the user(Para 0038 Rosomoff discloses determining delivery date based on medication usage and previous shipments).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Rosomoff(US20230099084A1) in view of Figgers(US20250372249A1), DiVenuta(US20090262909A1), and Doherty(US20200365245A1).
Claim 6
Rosomoff discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein (Para 0119, Rosomoff discloses shipping time).
Rosomoff, Figgers, and DiVenuta do not explicitly disclose:
the estimated delivery date is based on a shipping method selected by the user
Doherty discloses:
the estimated delivery date is based on a shipping method selected by the user(Para 0080, Doherty discloses estimated delivery based on shipping parameters)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dynamic user interface generation for delivery scheduling optimization of Rosomoff to add estimated delivery date is based on a shipping method selected by the user, as taught by Doherty. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to allow a patient to set preferences for delivery date of a medication, but in this case for a system for filling a prescription(Para 0004, Doherty discloses: “There are also limited processes for communicating this information to customers in advance to allow them to plan around the wait time. Known techniques for communicating information are not suitable for medical prescriptions because they do not allow the customer to efficiently search for a desirable pharmacy among a plurality of available pharmacies, and to direct the prescription to the pharmacy with desired characteristics such as geographical proximity and suitable operating hours.”).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Rosomoff(US20230099084A1) in view of Figgers(US20250372249A1), DiVenuta(US20090262909A1), and Knotts(US20120209619A1).
Claim 9
Rosomoff, Figgers, and DiVenuta do not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the medication information includes a unique prescription identifier.
Knotts discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the medication information includes a unique prescription identifier(Figure 7, Knotts discloses a prescription number).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dynamic user interface generation for delivery scheduling optimization of Rosomoff to add medication information includes a unique prescription identifier, as taught by Knotts. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to track and fulfill a prescription based on a unique identifier to prevent errors in medication fulfillment, but in this case for a system for a system for tracking and dispensing medication(Para 0002, Knotts discloses: “For example, not all of the prescription medication orders may be filled and thus not all of the prescription medication may be shipped to the healthcare facility. Additionally, for example, the pharmacy may fill medication containers to fulfill all of the prescription medication orders, but may accidentally ship some of the prescription medication to the wrong healthcare facility.”).
Claim 10
Rosomoff, Figgers, and DiVenuta do not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 9, wherein the medication prescription is shipped only if the unique prescription identifier is found in a prescription databased before the at least one shipment date.
Knotts discloses:
The method according to claim 9, wherein the medication prescription is shipped only if the unique prescription identifier is found in a prescription databased before the at least one shipment date(Figure 7 and 8, Knotts discloses verification of prescription before providing shipment status).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dynamic user interface generation for delivery scheduling optimization of Rosomoff to add the medication prescription is shipped only if the unique prescription identifier is found in a prescription databased before the at least one shipment date, as taught by Knotts. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to track and fulfill a prescription based on a unique identifier in a database to prevent errors in medication fulfillment, but in this case for a system for a system for tracking and dispensing medication(Para 0002, Knotts discloses: “For example, not all of the prescription medication orders may be filled and thus not all of the prescription medication may be shipped to the healthcare facility. Additionally, for example, the pharmacy may fill medication containers to fulfill all of the prescription medication orders, but may accidentally ship some of the prescription medication to the wrong healthcare facility.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Rosomoff(US20230099084A1) in view of Figgers(US20250372249A1), DiVenuta(US20090262909A1), and Hill(US20040122712A1).
Claim 11
Rosomoff, Figgers, and DiVenuta do not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 10, wherein the notification is updated to specify the shipping is canceled if the unique prescription identifier is not found.
Hill discloses:
The method according to claim 10, wherein the notification is updated to specify the shipping is canceled(Para 0048, Hill discloses prescription cancellation notification) if the unique prescription identifier is not found.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dynamic user interface generation for delivery scheduling optimization of Rosomoff to add notification is updated to specify the shipping is canceled, as taught by Hill. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to not fulfill a prescription and cancel a shipment to prevent erroneous or unauthorized dispensing of medication, but in this case for a system for prescription management(Para 0003, Hill discloses: “Existing systems have provided the capability to fill prescriptions for a plurality of pharmacies at a central location remote from the pharmacies. The central filing system allows pharmacies to fill prescriptions using an automated system as opposed to standard manual filling of the prescription at the pharmacy itself which may result in cost savings for the pharmacies.”)
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the subject matter free of prior art:
The primary reason for the indication of subject matter free of prior art is the inclusion of the following limitations in the combination as recited and are not found in the closest available prior art of record:
Claim 8 (in part):
“The method according to claim 1, wherein the user is automatically connected to a live agent if a national drug code (NDC) associated with the medication prescription is a priority medication.”
The closest available prior art of record as follows:
Rosomoff(US20230099084A1) discloses a dynamic UI generation for delivery scheduling optimization, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
DiVenuta(US20090262909A1) discloses a system for providing targeted messages for pharmacy IVR systems, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
Based on the evidence presented above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly
discloses or suggests the claimed invention. For this reason, claim 8 would be found to be
subject matter free of prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sucilla(US10698984B2) discloses a management system for user authentication and prescription refill verification
Armstrong(US12087418B1) discloses a system for facilitating order and delivery of prescription medication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights