DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the filed on 6/25/2025.
Claims 1-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (provisional application 63/664,529, filed 6/26/2024) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), or under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) is acknowledged.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0003]) that at-home medication administration introduces new challenges related to patient safety, adherence, and the risk of medication errors. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through remote verification of authenticity of medications using the steps of “receiving requests, identifying regions, comparing features, identifying matches, triggering sessions, extracting features and postures, inputting features, transmitting commands,” etc. Applicant’s system/method/computer readable medium is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “remote verification of authenticity of medications,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0002]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method/computer readable medium for performing the steps of “receiving requests, identifying regions, comparing features, identifying matches, triggering sessions, extracting features and postures, inputting features, transmitting commands,” etc., that is “remote verification of authenticity of medications,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. administration verification systems, user devices, authorized operator devices, mass storage devices, central processing units, multimedia devices, I/O devices and interfaces, portable devices, networks, computing systems (Applicant’s Specification [0047]-[0058], [0143]-[0157]), etc.) to perform steps of “receiving requests, identifying regions, comparing features, identifying matches, triggering sessions, extracting features and postures, inputting features, transmitting commands,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
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 (i.e. administration verification systems, user devices, authorized operator devices, mass storage devices, central processing units, multimedia devices, I/O devices and interfaces, portable devices, networks, computing systems, etc.) 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 (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. administration verification systems, user devices, authorized operator devices, mass storage devices, central processing units, multimedia devices, I/O devices and interfaces, portable devices, networks, computing systems, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0047]-[0058], [0143]-[0157], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “administration verification systems, user devices, authorized operator devices, mass storage devices, central processing units, multimedia devices, I/O devices and interfaces, portable devices, networks, computing systems,” etc. to perform the functions of “receiving requests, identifying regions, comparing features, identifying matches, triggering sessions, extracting features and postures, inputting features, transmitting commands,” etc. The recited “administration verification systems, user devices, authorized operator devices, mass storage devices, central processing units, multimedia devices, I/O devices and interfaces, portable devices, networks, computing systems,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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 improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claims 1, 7 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Hyeji et al. 2021 (Reference V).
CLAIM
As per claim , Hyeji et al. 2021 disclose(s):
a system (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1514, line 4) for remote verification of medication administration, the system comprising:
one or more processors (Hyeji et al. 2021, Figure 4); and
one or more memories (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1525, line 20) configured to store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the system to:
receive, from a remote device, a request for verifying administration for a medication, the request comprising at least one image (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1519, lines 12-13, );
identify one or more regions of interest from the at least one image, wherein the one or more regions of interest each comprise a medication identifying feature (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1515, lines 15-17);
compare a feature representation of each medication identifying feature to a plurality of reference feature representations corresponding to one or more medications and/or medication packaging, wherein each reference feature representation is centrally managed by one or more authorized operator devices (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1521, lines 3-7);
identify, based on the comparing, a matching medication associated with a medication providing entity and corresponding administration instructions (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1521, lines 19-20);
trigger an image acquisition session at the remote device to obtain a time- series of images, at least one of the images comprising at least a portion of a patient in proximity to the medication (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1519, lines 12-13);
extract, based on the time-series of images, (i) one or more patient features and (ii) a posture of the medication in relation to the patient (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1521, lines 2-3, page 1517, lines 5-6);
input the one or more patient features, the posture of the medication in relation to the patient, and administration instructions into a machine learning model to obtain a set of patient-specific administration instructions to direct a user to administer the medication (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1515, lines 15-17; page 1517, lines 29-34; page 1520, lines 5-9; and figure 5); and
transmit, to the remote device, one or more commands for displaying the set of patient-specific administration instructions (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1515, lines 12-13).
CLAIM 2
As per claim 2, Hyeji et al. 2021 disclose(s) the system of claim and further disclose(s) the limitations of:
wherein the medication identifying feature comprises at least one of: a medication, an injection device, a medication package, a machine-readable code, or a tamper-evident feature (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1517, lines 5-6).
CLAIM 3
As per claim 3, Hyeji et al. 2021 disclose(s) the system of claim and further disclose(s) the limitations of:
wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: triggering a second image acquisition session at the remote device to obtain a second time-series of images; determining, based on the second time-series of images, a trajectory of the medication towards the patient; responsive to determining that the trajectory is inconsistent with a predefined administration path, generating and transmitting, to the remote device, a corrective instruction (Hyeji et al. 2021, abstract).
CLAIM 4
As per claim 4, Hyeji et al. 2021 disclose(s) the system of claim and further disclose(s) the limitations of:
wherein the feature representation comprises at least one of: a hash value, a vector embedding, or a set of extracted visual features (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1517, lines 24-26).
CLAIM 5
As per claim 5, Hyeji et al. 2021 disclose(s) the system of claim and further disclose(s) the limitations of:
wherein the instructions for identifying the corresponding administration instructions further cause the system to: generate a search query for retrieving administration instructions from a remote database, wherein the query comprises an identifier of the medication; transmit the query to the remote database; and receive, from the remote database, a set administration instructions (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1519, lines 8-14; page 1525, lines 9-10).
CLAIM 6
As per claim 6, Hyeji et al. 2021 disclose(s) the system of claim and further disclose(s) the limitations of:
wherein the instructions for identifying the corresponding administration instructions further cause the one system to: identify a URL associated with the medication providing entity; generate a request to scrape data at the URL, wherein the request comprises an identifier of the medication; receive scraped data from the URL; and generate a set of administration instructions based on the scraped data (Hyeji et al. 2021, page 1515, lines 23-27; page 1520, lines 5-9; and figure 5).
CLAIMS 7-12
As per claims 7-12, claims 7-12 are directed to a method. Claims 7-12 recite the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-6. Claims 7-12 are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-6.
CLAIMS 13-20
As per claims 13-20, claims 13-20 are directed to a computer readable medium. Claims 13-20 recite the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-6. Claims 13-20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-6.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO-892 and include:
Chen et al. (US 2018/0092595) disclose systems and methods are provided for training and monitoring administration of an inhaler medication. The system includes a mobile computing device that is configured to provide an augmented reality training and monitoring aid for asthma patients. In particular, the mobile device is programmed to capture video using a camera and sound recordings using a microphone in order to measure the patient's head position from the video and measure events relating to inhalation and exhalation from the microphone recordings. This real-time data is used to provide real-time testing and monitoring of the patient's technique for using an inhaler and an augmented reality training aid that informs the patients training.
Hanina et al. (US 2020/0051244) disclose a method, system and computer program for confirming proper medication amount for a medication injection apparatus. The computer program causes a computer to perform the steps of providing one or more instructions on a display of a computing device instructing placement of an injectable medication apparatus including an indication of an amount of medication to be injected by the injectable medication apparatus, imaging by an image capture one or more images of the injectable medication apparatus including the indication of the amount of medication, and comparing by a processor of the computing device through recognition of the indication of the amount of medication, the indicated mount to a predetermined amount.
Patil et al. 2006 (Reference U) disclose automatic dispensers that incorporate features such as alarms, dose missed indicators followed by the access to the next dose, and simultaneous access to medication of different types. Patil et al. are developing medication dispensing methods suitable for use in remote dispensing for opioid dependent patients. These include remote patient monitoring, facial image processing, and background processing techniques for monitoring and assessing the patient.
Tiwari et al. 2024 (Reference W) disclose smart pill dispensers that include sensors and connections for remote monitoring and control. Real-time data sharing with the Internet of Things (IoT) allows healthcare practitioners to monitor adherence and intervene as needed. Smart pill dispensers use face recognition and biometric verification to ensure medicine is given to the right person. Patients and doctors get notifications for missing doses or wrong medicine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
