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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 18 June 2026. Claims 1, 6, 13, 16, and 20 were amended. Claims 2 and 17 were canceled. Claims 9-11 were previously canceled. Claims 1, 3-8, 12-16, and 18-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Independent claims 1, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite “RFID,” “NFC,” and “USB,” which are abbreviations. For the purposes of clarity, the first use of an abbreviation should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite “SMS” and “EMR,” which are abbreviations. For the purposes of clarity, the first use of an abbreviation should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
The use of the terms “QR-code” and “Bluetooth,” which are a trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. These terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-16, and 18-28 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.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 contains the trademark/trade name “QR-code” and “Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a required input type and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Dependent claims 3-8, 12-15, 18-19 and 21-28 inherit this deficiency.
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, 3-8, 12-16, and 18-28 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-16, and 18-28 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1-8, 12-19, 21-22, and 24-28 fall within the category of a process. Claims 20 and 23 fall within the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-16, and 18-28 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
creating a client record with personal and medical elements … , the client record corresponding to a client;
storing one or more client assignment identifiers …, the one or more client assignment identifiers corresponding to the client to allow for authentication of a client identity …, the client identity corresponding to the client … ;
upon the client using the medical tracking application, authenticating the client …;
[determining] one or more required actions to be performed by the client to confirm completion of necessary steps to fulfil the medical elements, each of the one or more required actions to be performed by the client …;
for each of the one or more required actions to be performed by the client:
set one or more timers for one or more time limits on required inputs by the client for a respective required action;
before expiration of a timer of the one or more timers, trigger a notification for the client when the respective required action to be performed by the client to confirm completion of necessary steps to fulfill one or more medical elements is due and the required input by the client has not yet been performed by the client;
monitor performance of the respective required action to indicate completion of necessary steps to fulfil the medical elements …; and
upon expiration of the timer for the respective required action, determine whether the respective required action comprising the required input by the client was performed correctly or incorrectly …;
receiving … a plurality of medical activities …, the plurality of medical activities comprising determinations of whether each of the one or more required actions by the client was performed correctly or incorrectly; and
generating a report and alerts for authorized users based on the plurality of medical activities relating to the codified medical elements, wherein the report comprises correct actions, incorrect actions, and inactions of the client related to the codified medical elements.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “medical tracking” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Medical tracking” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation includes the organization of patient activity connected to medical/medication tracking.
Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes the recitation of a mental process because they recite concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
storing the client record in a database at an external computer;
[storing client assignment identifiers] in one or more databases;
using a medical tracking application running on a medical computer and the external computer, … the medical computer having one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices;
exchanging one or more client assignment identifier messages between the medical tracking application running on the medical computer and the external computer;
processing the one or more client assignment identifier messages to verify the client identity using one or more database lookups of the one or more databases;
codifying, at the external computer, the medical elements from the client record for the client, wherein each of the codified medical elements comprise [the one or more required actions];
input by the client using the one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices, the required input by the client comprising input from at least one of barcode scanning, QR-code scanning, RFID communication, NFC, Bluetooth, USB, vital sign collection, and weight scale readings;
sending the codified medical elements to the medical tracking application running on the medical computer for execution by the medical tracking application, wherein the external computer controls the medical tracking application running on the medical computer and directs action of the medical tracking application to remind, track and manage the medical elements, the medical tracking application executing the codified medical elements to: [perform the timer elements of the abstract idea];
the monitoring using data received from the one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices;
[determining complete or incomplete actions] using the data received from the one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices;
at the external computer, [receiving data] relating to the codified medical elements from the medical tracking application running on the medical computer.
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements connected to sending messages and information between devices adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The rest of the additional elements amount to merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, 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 connected to sending messages and information between devices adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements are further considered to recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d), see examples in section II “receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The rest of the additional elements amount to merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
generating of one or more of the client assignment identifiers is implemented at the external computer, uploaded to the external computer or implemented within the medical computer.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the sending the codified medical elements comprises sending only changes that have been made since the codified medical elements had been sent to the medical tracking application running on the medical computer.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 4 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the medical computer running the medical tracking application is one of a personal mobile computer that is property of the client and a shared computer across a plurality of clients, wherein the plurality of clients includes the client.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 5 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
each of the one or more client assignment identifiers is one of multiple values composed of one or more alpha-numeric values, one or more signatures or a combination of both.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 6 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
relaying messages, using the external computer as a proxy agent, between the medical tracking application and one or more messaging systems selected from electronic mail, SMS text message, social media messaging and proprietary EMR messaging systems.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 7 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
adjusting, using the external computer, operational parameters from one or more messaging systems selected from electronic mail, SMS text message, social media messaging and proprietary EMR messaging systems.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the codified medical elements direct the medical computer to use a short-range communication method to release one or more securely held medications being held for the client.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 12 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the codified medical elements indicate health appliances, video equipment and environmental sensors that are part of the one or more medical devices connected to the medical computer and timing information for when each of the health appliances, video equipment and environmental sensors should be activated and used.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 13 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the codified medical elements limit client activities, vital readings and environmental factors to raise alerts on the medical computer and to configured users at the external computer.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 14 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of received medical activities triggers configured notification actions within the external computer, the configured notification actions comprising SMS messages, email messages, EMR signals and social media interactions.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 15 is ineligible.
Independent claim 16 recites a method that is substantially similar to the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected based on the same analysis.
Dependent claim 18 recites the method of claim 16, wherein:
the incorrect actions comprise one or more failures to perform an action, the one or more failures to perform the action comprising at least one of performing the action in an incorrect way, performing the action early, performing the action late, performing the action excessively and not performing the action within a required time range.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 18 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites the method of claim 16, wherein:
the one or more client assignment identifier messages to the external computer indicates that the medical computer used one or more stored client assignment identities to verify the client successfully.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 19 is ineligible.
Independent claim 20 recites a system that performs a method substantially similar to the method of claim 1. Claim 20 recites further additional elements, including:
at least one memory;
one or more databases;
wherein the external computer communicates with the medical tracking application running on the medical computer over at least one network.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 20 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 21 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
processing the received plurality of medical activities using an artificial intelligence component to analyze patterns in the medical activities performed and not performed by the client, the artificial intelligence component making predictions regarding the client's future behaviour and adjusting one or more of the medical elements based on the predictions.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 21 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 22 recites the method of claim 16, wherein:
processing the received plurality of medical activities using an artificial intelligence component to analyze patterns in the medical activities performed and not performed by the client, the artificial intelligence component making predictions regarding the client's future behaviour and adjusting one or more of the medical elements based on the predictions.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 22 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 23 recites the system of claim 20, wherein:
an artificial intelligence component to analyze patterns in the medical activities performed and not performed by the client, the artificial intelligence component making predictions regarding the client's future behaviour and adjusting one or more of the medical elements based on the predictions.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 23 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 24 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of: EKG machines, heart rate monitors, blood pressure cuffs and readers, glucose monitors, weight scales, vital reading devices, scanners, barcode scanners, RFID scanners, RFID devices, NFC devices, a built-in camera, speaker, microphone, environmental sensors, air quality sensors, cameras, and monitoring devices.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 24 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 25 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the medical elements indicate required verification before the client is provided access to medications from a locked medication holding device and the method further comprises:
upon authenticating the client by processing the one or more client assignment identifier messages to verify the client identity, unlocking the medication holding device to release the medications.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 25 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 26 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
at the external computer, displaying a configuration user interface with timer configuration settings to set, display, and modify the one or more timers and the one or more time limits, and
capabilities configuration settings to set, display, and modify the required capabilities of the medical computer to support the requirements of the medical elements.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 26 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 27 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
after authenticating an authorized user, displaying at a user interface tracking information for the client and the report of the correct actions, incorrect actions, and inactions of the client related to the codified medical elements.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 27 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 28 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more client assignment identifiers comprise or indicate capabilities of the medical computer allowing the external computer to determine whether the capabilities of the medical computer support requirements of the medical elements, wherein the method further comprises:
matching the capabilities of the medical computer against the requirements of the medical elements to further authenticate the capabilities of medical computer to support the medical tracking application to execute the codified medical elements.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 28 is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-16, 18-20, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousseau et al. (U.S. 2023/0028528), hereinafter “Mousseau,” in view of Chu (U.S. 2016/0026773), hereinafter “Chu.”
Regarding claim 1, Mousseau discloses a method for generating notifications or alerts based on medical activities relating to codified medical elements from a medical tracking application and assigning the medical tracking application to a client using an external computer, the method comprising:
creating a client record with personal and medical elements (See Mousseau [0287] The drug control-file includes details from the prescription, details from the drug consumer like their identification, biomedical requirements, and operating details for the drug-dispensing computer device. Fig. 3 and [0308] the drug control file stores both personal information (patient identification) and medial elements (prescribed drugs and dosage requirements, etc.). [0319] drug control file can be used for storing biomedical data connected to the patient.) and storing the client record in a database at an external computer (See Mousseau [0222] the drug control file is deployed and stored by the central server. See also Fig. 1, elements 136 and 140.), the client record corresponding to a client (See Mousseau [0287] The drug control-file includes details from the prescription, details from the drug consumer like their identification, biomedical requirements, and operating details for the drug-dispensing computer device. See also Fig. 3.);
storing one or more client assignment identifiers in one or more databases, the one or more client assignment identifiers corresponding to the client (See Mousseau [0187] provide their digital identity or biometric identity as part of the prescription process. In these embodiments, this user-identity might be already uploaded to the central server ready to be used to confirm the computer device user. See also [0111] and [0141].) to allow for authentication of a client identity using a medical tracking application running on a medical computer and the external computer, the client identity corresponding to the client (See Mousseau [0292] the final step in provisioning can take place: the provisioning of the user-identity. The provisioning of the user-identity requires the drug consumer to provide a user-identity to the drug dispensing computer device to receive their regular dosage of drugs.), the medical computer having one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices (See Mousseau [0250] glucose monitoring. [0261] system can use Bar code, QR Code, RFID tags to confirm the correct drugs are in the device. [0541] sub-systems for tracking blood pressure readings, blood glucose levels, EKG monitors, and heart rhythms detectors and many others. [0633] a biomedical reading from a drug consumer’s watch or heart monitor could indicate that a drug has caused a drug consumer’s blood pressure to rise dangerously.);
exchanging one or more client assignment identifier messages between the medical tracking application running on the medical computer and the external computer (See Mousseau [0196] if a drug consumer has received their first drug-dispensing computer device and has provided their user-identity, it might be directly deployed by the central server and start operating. [0282] log in using an app to register the dispenser. See also [0113] and [0139].);
upon the client using the medical tracking application, authenticating the client by processing the one or more client assignment identifier messages to verify the client identity using one or more database lookups of the one or more databases (See Mousseau [0187] provide their digital identity or biometric identity as part of the prescription process. In these embodiments, this user-identity might be already uploaded to the central server ready to be used to confirm the computer device user. See also [0111] and [0141].);
codifying, at the external computer, the medical elements from the client record for the client (See Mousseau Fig. 3 and [0321] user can enter information related to a grace period for marking a dose as missed. [0322] system can codify what to do if multiple doses missed. [0326] There is also a broad parameter to indicate if an alert message should be sent if the drug consumer misses a dose. This would be valuable when a drug consumer is high-risk or on a medication that cannot or should not ever be missed without concern for the patient’s health.), wherein each of the codified medical elements comprise one or more required actions to be performed by the client to confirm completion of necessary steps to fulfil the medical elements (See Mousseau [0202] During the deployment stage, the drug control-file watchdog provides tracking information for detecting events that transpire on the drug-dispensing computer device. [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device.), each of the one or more required actions to be performed by the client comprising required input by the client using the one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices, the required input by the client comprising input from at least one of barcode scanning, QR-code scanning, RFID communication, NFC, Bluetooth, USB, vital sign collection, and weight scale readings (See Mousseau [0250] glucose monitoring. [0261] system can use Bar code, QR Code, RFID tags to confirm the correct drugs are in the device. [0541] sub-systems for tracking blood pressure readings, blood glucose levels, EKG monitors, and heart rhythms detectors and many others. [0633] a biomedical reading from a drug consumer’s watch or heart monitor could indicate that a drug has caused a drug consumer’s blood pressure to rise dangerously.);
sending the codified medical elements to the medical tracking application running on the medical computer for execution by the medical tracking application (See Mousseau [0202] During the deployment stage, the drug control-file watchdog provides tracking information for detecting events that transpire on the drug-dispensing computer device. [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device.), wherein the external computer controls the medical tracking application running on the medical computer and directs action of the medical tracking application to remind, track and manage the medical elements (See Mousseau [0176] The drug control-file is managed through the central server by those individuals that have been given rights to access this information. [0202] During the deployment stage, the drug control-file watchdog provides tracking information for detecting events that transpire on the drug-dispensing computer device. [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device.), the medical tracking application executing the codified medical elements to:
for each of the one or more required actions to be performed by the client: set one or more timers for one or more time limits on required inputs by the client for a respective required action (See Mousseau [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device. [0537] system can use timers and when a timer expires it could indicate that it is time for another drug dose to be dispensed for the drug consumer.);
before expiration of a timer of the one or more timers, trigger a notification for the client when the respective required action to be performed by the client to confirm completion of necessary steps to fulfill one or more medical elements is due and the required input by the client has not yet been performed by the client (See Mousseau [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device. [0529] system can send an email message or SMS message to the computer device manager or a support person for that computer device to warn them something has taken place. See also [0231].);
monitor performance of the respective required action to indicate completion of necessary steps to fulfil the medical elements (See Mousseau [0236] system used to monitor, guide and track their drug consumption.), the monitoring using data received from the one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices (See Mousseau [0623] the central server monitors the drug extraction count given by the drug-dispensing computer device each time a drug consumer removes their drug dose. [0633] a biomedical reading from a drug consumer’s watch or heart monitor could indicate that a drug has caused a drug consumer’s blood pressure to rise dangerously.); and
upon expiration of the timer for the respective required action (See Mousseau [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device. [0537] system can use timers and when a timer expires it could indicate that it is time for another drug dose to be dispensed for the drug consumer.), determine whether the respective required action comprising the required input by the client was performed correctly or incorrectly (See Chu Fig. 7 and [0202] the system can provide a report for medication adherence. This includes adherence to the schedule (i.e. “actions”), missed doses (i.e. “inaction”), and extra or partial doses (i.e. “incorrect action”).) using the data received from the one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices (See Mousseau [0623] the central server monitors the drug extraction count given by the drug-dispensing computer device each time a drug consumer removes their drug dose. [0633] a biomedical reading from a drug consumer’s watch or heart monitor could indicate that a drug has caused a drug consumer’s blood pressure to rise dangerously.);
receiving, at the external computer, a plurality of medical activities relating to the codified medical elements from the medical tracking application running on the medical computer (See Mousseau [0201] Executing parts of the information within the control-files can involve setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the computer device. [0206] In other examples in the medical field, whenever drugs are consumed, drug supplies begin to run low, low power issues are detected, or others specific events take place, information concerning these events can be relayed to the central server. Further details on these messages are provided herein. For computer devices in the medical field, authorized health support workers can then see these messages on a connected interface and be warned via alerts when serious issues arise. See also [0118].); and
generating a report and alerts for authorized users based on the plurality of medical activities relating to the codified medical elements (See Mousseau [0217] notifications and alerts for whatever they might want to be monitoring. [0271] messages may be sent to the central server whenever drugs are consumed, drug supplies in the device are low (triggering warning messages), or the drug-dispensing computer device.).
Mousseau does not disclose:
the plurality of medical activities comprising determinations of whether each of the one or more required actions by the client was performed correctly or incorrectly;
wherein the report comprises correct actions, incorrect actions, and inactions of the client related to the codified medical elements.
Chu teaches:
the plurality of medical activities comprising determinations of whether each of the one or more required actions by the client was performed correctly or incorrectly (See Chu Fig. 7 and [0202] the system can provide a report for medication adherence. This includes adherence to the schedule (i.e. “actions”), missed doses (i.e. “inaction”), and extra or partial doses (i.e. “incorrect action”).);
wherein the report comprises correct actions, incorrect actions, and inactions of the client related to the codified medical elements (See Chu Fig. 7 and [0202] the system can provide a report for medication adherence. This includes adherence to the schedule (i.e. “actions”), missed doses (i.e. “inaction”), and extra or partial doses (i.e. “incorrect action”).).
The system of Chu is applicable to the disclosure of Mousseau as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to medication adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mousseau to include adherence reporting as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mousseau in order to communicate, analyze, and act upon complex real time medication adherence information in a timely, orchestrated manner (see Chu [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
generating of one or more of the client assignment identifiers is implemented at the external computer, uploaded to the external computer or implemented within the medical computer (See Mousseau [0282] the system can authenticate the device in order to allow assignment of the computer device. This is understood to be performed by at least the server or the medical computer.).
Regarding claim 4, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the sending the codified medical elements comprises sending only changes that have been made since the codified medical elements had been sent to the medical tracking application running on the medical computer (See Mousseau [0289] the system enables the change of the dosage values in the drug control-file and the request that it be uploaded back into the drug-dispensing computer device.).
Regarding claim 5, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the medical computer running the medical tracking application is one of a personal mobile computer that is property of the client and a shared computer across a plurality of clients, wherein the plurality of clients includes the client (See Mousseau [0220] could be a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, or any computer system capable of allowing input of prescription information through a specialized application or through a web browser. [0283] The computer might be a cell phone, tablet, laptop or desktop computer system.).
Regarding claim 6, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
each of the one or more client assignment identifiers is one of multiple values composed of one or more alpha-numeric values, one or more signatures or a combination of both (See Mousseau [0186] The term user-identity is used to include both biological elements of identity and digital forms of identity. Most forms of digital identities using tokens and other verifiers are all based on online multi-factor authentication steps which includes one form of biometric provided by the computer device user. See also [0262] and [0264].).
Regarding claim 7, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, comprising:
relaying messages, using the external computer as a proxy agent, between the medical tracking application and one or more messaging systems selected from electronic mail, SMS text message, social media messaging and proprietary EMR messaging systems (See Mousseau [0529] system can send an email message or SMS message to the computer device manager or a support person for that computer device to warn them something has taken place. See also [0231].).
Regarding claim 8, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, comprising:
adjusting, using the external computer, operational parameters (See Mousseau [0135] adjust the operation of the computer device during active deployment usage to benefit the computer device user or to provide more safety or control for the manager of the computer device. [0210] system adjust the operation of the computer devices.) from one or more messaging systems selected from electronic mail, SMS text message, social media messaging and proprietary EMR messaging systems (See Mousseau [0529] system can send an email message or SMS message to the computer device manager or a support person for that computer device to warn them something has taken place. See also [0231].).
Regarding claim 12, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the codified medical elements direct the medical computer to use a short-range communication method to release one or more securely held medications being held for the client (See Mousseau [0292] the system can require the drug consumer to provide a user-identity to the drug dispensing computer device to receive their regular dosage of drugs. [0279] the drug-dispensing computer device is capable of short-range communication. See also [0127]-[0128].).
Regarding Claim 13, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the codified medical elements indicate health appliances, video equipment … that are part of the one or more medical devices connected to the medical computer (See Mousseau [0324] In other embodiments, other types of biomedical items are needed, like a blood-pressure reading or even a picture of a urine test strip. [0363] system can require video information for identifying user.) and timing information for when each of the health appliances, video equipment … should be activated and used (See Mousseau [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device. See also Fig. 3).
Mousseau does not disclose:
[the method uses] environmental sensors.
Chu teaches:
[the method uses] environmental sensors (See Chu [0063] system can use environmental sensors and information as part of the medication adherence.).
The system of Chu is applicable to the disclosure of Mousseau as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to medication adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mousseau to include environmental sensors and social media messaging as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mousseau in order to communicate, analyze, and act upon complex real time medication adherence information in a timely, orchestrated manner (see Chu [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the codified medical elements limit client activities, vital readings (See Mousseau [0237] he intention of the drug dispenser is to ensure that drug prescriptions are followed precisely, for the safety by the drug consumers. [0250] upper and lower limits of insulin amount and the frequency of injections. [0324] In other embodiments, other types of biomedical items are needed, like a blood-pressure reading or even a picture of a urine test strip.) to raise alerts on the medical computer and to configured users at the external computer (See Mousseau [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device.).
Mousseau does not disclose:
[codified] environmental factors.
Chu teaches:
[codified] environmental factors (See Chu [0231] system can send notifications based on environmental factors, such as change in air quality, weather advisory and alerts, weather conditions, temperature change, humidity change.).
The system of Chu is applicable to the disclosure of Mousseau as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to medication adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mousseau to include environmental sensors and social media messaging as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mousseau in order to communicate, analyze, and act upon complex real time medication adherence information in a timely, orchestrated manner (see Chu [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the plurality of received medical activities triggers configured notification actions within the external computer, the configured notification actions comprising SMS messages, email messages, EMR signals (See Mousseau [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device. [0529] system can send an email message or SMS message to the computer device manager or a support person for that computer device to warn them something has taken place. See also [0231].).
Mousseau does not disclose:
social media interactions.
Chu teaches:
social media interactions (See Chu [0211] the system can send social media messages or posts as part of the notification interventions.).
The system of Chu is applicable to the disclosure of Mousseau as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to medication adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mousseau to include environmental sensors and social media messaging as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mousseau in order to communicate, analyze, and act upon complex real time medication adherence information in a timely, orchestrated manner (see Chu [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Mousseau in view of Chu disclose the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 16 recites a method that is substantially similar to the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claim 18, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the incorrect actions comprise one or more failures to perform an action, the one or more failures to perform the action comprising at least one of performing the action in an incorrect way, performing the action early, performing the action late, performing the action excessively and not performing the action within a required time range (See Mousseau Fig. 3 and [0321] user can enter information related to a grace period for marking a dose as missed. [0322] system can codify what to do if multiple doses missed. [0326] There is also a broad parameter to indicate if an alert message should be sent if the drug consumer misses a dose. This would be valuable when a drug consumer is high-risk or on a medication that cannot or should not ever be missed without concern for the patient’s health.).
Regarding claim 19, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the one or more client assignment identifier messages to the external computer indicates that the medical computer used one or more stored client assignment identities to verify the client successfully (See Mousseau Figs. 10a-10b for a list of messages used by the system, including verification and authentication.).
Regarding claim 20, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Clam 20 recites a system that performs a method that is substantially similar to the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claim 24, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the one or more connected medical devices or built-in devices comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of: EKG machines, heart rate monitors, blood pressure cuffs and readers, glucose monitors, weight scales, vital reading devices, scanners, barcode scanners, RFID scanners, RFID devices, NFC devices, a built-in camera, speaker, microphone, environmental sensors, air quality sensors, cameras, and monitoring devices (See Mousseau [0250] glucose monitoring. [0261] system can use Bar code, QR Code, RFID tags to confirm the correct drugs are in the device. [0541] sub-systems for tracking blood pressure readings, blood glucose levels, EKG monitors, and heart rhythms detectors and many others. [0633] a biomedical reading from a drug consumer’s watch or heart monitor could indicate that a drug has caused a drug consumer’s blood pressure to rise dangerously.).
Regarding claim 25, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the medical elements indicate required verification before the client is provided access to medications from a locked medication holding device (See Mousseau [0234] To ensure the ability to enforce a limited use on the computer device user (drug consumer), the drug dispensing computer devices may be tamper-proof. This helps to prevent drug consumers from gaining access to excessive amounts of highly addictive medications. The system may be designed to provide limited access to the drugs in the drug dispensing computer devices. [0674] the system can use an unlocking mechanism to extract a single drug dose.) and the method further comprises:
upon authenticating the client by processing the one or more client assignment identifier messages to verify the client identity, unlocking the medication holding device to release the medications (See Mousseau [0234] To ensure the ability to enforce a limited use on the computer device user (drug consumer), the drug dispensing computer devices may be tamper-proof. This helps to prevent drug consumers from gaining access to excessive amounts of highly addictive medications. The system may be designed to provide limited access to the drugs in the drug dispensing computer devices. [0674] the system can use an unlocking mechanism to extract a single drug dose.).
Regarding claim 26, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, comprising:
at the external computer, displaying a configuration user interface with timer configuration settings to set, display, and modify the one or more timers and the one or more time limits (See Mousseau [0222] system can use various APIs for the purposes of allowing different computer systems to create, modify, locate, and manage the use of the prescription information. [0237] the computer device may reside in the drug prescribers location and they may complete the drug control-file work at the central server. [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device. [0244] Drug prescriber and drug dispenser have different choices as to how they participate with the central server in the creation of the drug control-file and the viewing of tracking information provided by the drug dispensing computer device.), and
capabilities configuration settings to set, display, and modify the required capabilities of the medical computer to support the requirements of the medical elements (See Mousseau [0222] system can use various APIs for the purposes of allowing different computer systems to create, modify, locate, and manage the use of the prescription information. [0269] setting up timers, triggers, hardware interrupts, events and other actions to guide the behavior of the drug dispensing computer device. [0244] Drug prescriber and drug dispenser have different choices as to how they participate with the central server in the creation of the drug control-file and the viewing of tracking information provided by the drug dispensing computer device.).
Regarding claim 27, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, comprising:
after authenticating an authorized user, displaying at a user interface tracking information for the client (See Mousseau [0176] the drug control-file is managed through the central server by those individuals that have been given rights to access this information. [0238] system can require the drug dispenser to be authenticated before accessing the patient’s information connected to the dispensing device.).
Mousseau does not disclose:
[displaying] the report of the correct actions, incorrect actions, and inactions of the client related to the codified medical elements.
Chu teaches:
[displaying] the report of the correct actions, incorrect actions, and inactions of the client related to the codified medical elements (See Chu Fig. 7 and [0202] the system can provide a report for medication adherence. This includes adherence to the schedule (i.e. “actions”), missed doses (i.e. “inaction”), and extra or partial doses (i.e. “incorrect action”). [0244] Drug prescriber and drug dispenser have different choices as to how they participate with the central server in the creation of the drug control-file and the viewing of tracking information provided by the drug dispensing computer device.).
The system of Chu is applicable to the disclosure of Mousseau as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to medication adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mousseau to include environmental sensors and social media messaging as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mousseau in order to communicate, analyze, and act upon complex real time medication adherence information in a timely, orchestrated manner (see Chu [0004]).
Regarding claim 28, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau further discloses a method, wherein:
the one or more client assignment identifiers comprise or indicate capabilities of the medical computer allowing the external computer to determine whether the capabilities of the medical computer support requirements of the medical elements (See Mousseau [0253] the drug dispenser has several possible embodiments to verify they are in possession of a valid, available drug dispensing computer device. See also [0257]. Fig. 3 and [0313] identity the specific program that is allowed to access the file. [0314] more programs can be required. [0272] The capabilities and different types of drug-dispensing computer devices will provide for a myriad of possible embodiments depending on the type of drugs that need to be dispensed.), wherein the method further comprises:
matching the capabilities of the medical computer against the requirements of the medical elements to further authenticate the capabilities of medical computer to support the medical tracking application to execute the codified medical elements (See Mousseau [0570] The review of the information, person and receipt could lead to the need to use a specific computer device. [0571] In other embodiments, the number and type of drugs to be used could affect the computer device. See also [0572] and [0574].).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousseau et al. (U.S. 2023/0028528), hereinafter “Mousseau,” in view of Chu (U.S. 2016/0026773), hereinafter “Chu,” and further in view of Shor (U.S. 20150278475), hereinafter “Shor.”
Regarding claim 21, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Mousseau does not further disclose a method, comprising:
processing the received plurality of medical activities using an artificial intelligence component to analyze patterns in the medical activities performed and not performed by the client, the artificial intelligence component making predictions regarding the client's future behaviour and adjusting one or more of the medical elements based on the predictions.
Chu teaches:
processing the received plurality of medical activities using an artificial intelligence component to analyze patterns in the medical activities performed and not performed by the client, the artificial intelligence component making predictions regarding the client's future behaviour and adjusting one or more of the medical elements based on the predictions (See Shor [0056] the system can use artificial intelligence to analyze personal usage patterns, interests, needs, limitations etc., to provide interfaces, services, suggestions etc. to maximize user medication adherence and minimize the likelihood that a user will fail to take the medication.).
The system of Shor is applicable to the disclosure of Mousseau in view of Chu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to medication adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mousseau in view of Chu to include artificial intelligence as taught by Shor. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mousseau in order to maximize user medication adherence and minimize the likelihood that a user will fail to take the medication (see Shor [0056]).
Regarding claim 22, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Mousseau does not further disclose a method, comprising:
processing the received plurality of medical activities using an artificial intelligence component to analyze patterns in the medical activities performed and not performed by the client, the artificial intelligence component making predictions regarding the client's future behaviour and adjusting one or more of the medical elements based on the predictions.
Chu teaches:
processing the received plurality of medical activities using an artificial intelligence component to analyze patterns in the medical activities performed and not performed by the client, the artificial intelligence component making predictions regarding the client's future behaviour and adjusting one or more of the medical elements based on the predictions (See Shor [0056] the system can use artificial intelligence to analyze personal usage patterns, interests, needs, limitations etc., to provide interfaces, services, suggestions etc. to maximize user medication adherence and minimize the likelihood that a user will fail to take the medication.).
The system of Shor is applicable to the disclosure of Mousseau in view of Chu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to medication adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mousseau in view of Chu to include artificial intelligence as taught by Shor. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mousseau in order to maximize user medication adherence and minimize the likelihood that a user will fail to take the medication (see Shor [0056]).
Regarding claim 23, Mousseau in view of Chu discloses the system of claim 20 as discussed above. Mousseau does not further disclose a system, comprising:
an artificial intelligence component to analyze patterns in the medical activities performed and not performed by the client, the artificial intelligence component making predictions regarding the client's future behaviour and adjusting one or more of the medical elements based on the predictions.
Chu teaches:
an artificial intelligence component to analyze patterns in the medical activities performed and not performed by the client, the artificial intelligence component making predictions regarding the client's future behaviour and adjusting one or more of the medical elements based on the predictions (See Shor [0056] the system can use artificial intelligence to analyze personal usage patterns, interests, needs, limitations etc., to provide interfaces, services, suggestions etc. to maximize user medication adherence and minimize the likelihood that a user will fail to take the medication.).
The system of Shor is applicable to the disclosure of Mousseau in view of Chu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to medication adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mousseau in view of Chu to include artificial intelligence as taught by Shor. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mousseau in order to maximize user medication adherence and minimize the likelihood that a user will fail to take the medication (see Shor [0056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One (see Applicant Remarks page 9). This is not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims includes the organization of patient activity connected to medical/medication tracking. This is enough to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes the recitation of a mental process because they recite concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Any additional elements, such as the use of connected medical devices or broadly recited artificial intelligence, are considered under the remaining steps of the analysis (Prong Two and Step 2B).
Next, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite “specific improvement to technology” to satisfy Step 2A, Prong Two (see Applicant Remarks pages 9-10). This is not persuasive. The additional elements connected to sending messages and information between devices adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The rest of the additional elements amount to merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims amount to provide significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B (see Applicant Remarks page 10). This is not persuasive. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements connected to sending messages and information between devices adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements are further considered to recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d), see examples in section II “receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The rest of the additional elements (including the broadly recited artificial intelligence in claims 21-23) amount to merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claims remain rejected for being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the previously uncited portions of the Mousseau reference.
Examiner would like to address some arguments on pages 10-12 of Applicant Remarks. First, Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose or teach the external computer remotely controlling the medical tracking application. This is not persuasive. Mousseau [0176] states that the drug control-file is managed through the central server by those individuals that have been given rights to access this information. Therefore, the external computer controls the medical tracking application through the drug-control file, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim element. Next, Applicant argues that the use of barcodes, QR codes, vital sign tracking, etc. in Mousseau do not apply to confirming the consumption of medication. However, Mousseau [0623] states that the central server monitors the drug extraction count given by the drug-dispensing computer device each time a drug consumer removes their drug dose. With earlier recitation of the use of barcode, QR Code, RFID tags to confirm the correct drugs are in the device, it is reasonable to read that these same functions are used to track the removal of the drugs from the dispenser device. Further, Mousseau explicitly states in [0633] that the system can use biomedical readings (i.e. vital signs) as part of the drug tracking. Accordingly, the disclosure of Mousseau meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim. Finally, applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine because the presently recited architecture is not disclosed or taught in Mousseau or Chu. This is not persuasive. In response to this argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine in order to communicate, analyze and act upon complex real time medication adherence information in a timely, orchestrated manner (see Chu [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mousseau et al. (U.S. 2022/0367022) teaches a system and method for drug tracking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights