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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on April 1, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-21, as recited in an amendment filed on July 18, 2024, were subject to a final rejection in a final office action filed on September 25, 2024 (the “September 25, 2024 Final Office Action”). On January 23, 2025, Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a)(1). On March 13, 2025, Applicant filed an Appeal Brief in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (the “September 1, 2022 Appeal Brief”). In response to the March 13, 2025 Appeal Brief, Examiner filed an Examiner’s Answer in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 41.39 on June 6, 2025 (the “June 6, 2025 Examiner’s Answer”).
On July 29, 2025, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.41, Applicant filed a Reply Brief in response to the June 6, 2025 Examiner’s Answer (the “July 29, 2025 Reply Brief”). On February 17, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filed a Decision on Appeal, where the PTAB affirmed the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and reversed the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (the “February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal”). On April 1, 2026, Applicant filed a Request for Continued Examination in accordance with 37 CFR 1.114, wherein Applicant further amended claims 1, 10, and 20 and canceled claims 4 and 13, in response to the February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal (the “April 1, 2026 RCE”). As such, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21, as recited in the April 1, 2026 RCE, are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 6 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97(b)(4), and has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Concerning Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, pp. 9-15, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section, filed April 1, 2026, with respect to rejections of claim 1-5, 7-14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Further, in light of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (available at MPEP § 2106) (the “2019 Revised PEG”), the § 101 rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are maintained in this final office action.
First, Applicant asserts that the claims are eligible under § 101, because the claimed invention solves the problems of existing systems “through a specific technical approach”, specifically, “a system in which a motion sensor is coupled with one or more surveillance devices detects an individual entering an area of detection that includes a dispensing cabinet, which triggers activation of the surveillance devices to capture targeted recordings of possible diversion cabinets”. See Applicant’s Remarks, at p. 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument was previously addressed and found to be unpersuasive at least in the Decision on Appeal, filed on February 17, 2026 (the “February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal”) on pages 10-12. For example, the PTAB determined that the claims do not recite an improvement, the “[c]laim 1 does not recite, e.g., an improvement in how the dispensing cabinet, surveillance devices, processor, and memory operate.” See the February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal, at p. 12. The PTAB determined that, “[a]t best, the improvement is to the abstract ideas of mitigating risk and managing personal behavior, in this case by monitoring access to medication and analyzing time stamps on related data.” See the February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal, at p. 12. Therefore, the claims were not found to recite improvements in technology or some other technological field.
Similarly, the Examiner agrees with the aforementioned Decision on Appeal, because the amended claims fail to provide details for improving technology, such as making the devices more reliable, easier to maintain, and/or reducing device resources (e.g., power, processing time, memory, network bandwidth, and the like), as Applicant suggests. See Applicant’s Remarks, at p. 11. When evaluating whether claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or a technical field, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP § 2106.05(a). The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
For example, in the McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. case, the Federal Circuit relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. Id. Conversely, the Federal Circuit has held claims which merely record, transmit, and archive data by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing the TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto case). Further, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques, was also determined to be insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (also citing the TLI Communications case).
Similar to the TLI Communications case, Applicant’s claims merely implement conventional techniques, such as generating transaction records associated with a recording (i.e., gathering and storing data); linking the transaction records and different portions of the recording using timestamps (i.e., gathering and storing data); filtering the plurality of records (i.e., analyzing data); and determining the possible diversion event occurred based on detecting that a quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of medication (i.e., analyzing data). Applicant’s amendments to the claims merely apply the existing processes of receiving, transmitting, and analyzing transaction records and records of a possible diversion event in order to determine if a diversion event occurred. Under Prong Two of Step 2A, the Examiner submits that determining whether a possible diversion of a medication has occurred by comparing a detected quantity of the medication to an expected quantity of the medication is a common, existing business practice in the medical industry that is merely being applied on a generic computer/with generic computer devices. The Applicant has not described an improved manner for determining whether the diversion events have occurred, because the step for determining that the diversion occurred merely involves the existing technique of determining that a detected quantity of a medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication (encompasses a mental observation or evaluation of someone monitoring medication inventory records).
Further, the Federal Circuit has held that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, the Federal Circuit determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. See id. Similarly, the Examiner submits that most of the aforementioned steps in Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping; and the additional elements described in the claims (identified in bold under the Prong Two – Step 2A analysis below) amount to: (1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”); and (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant has merely added a general purpose computer to the abstract idea, because the claim invokes computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The claim invokes the data processor and memory storing instructions to perform the existing processes of: detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; and filtering the recording data. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the final step directed to generating an alert in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred and transmitting a control message to the dispensing cabinet to prevent access to the one or more drawers, amounts to necessary data gathering/outputting (mere transmission of data (the control message) over a network). Therefore, the claims as a whole do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality or to any other technology or technical field. Rather, the amendments to the claims merely modify the identified abstract idea without integrating the claims into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG.
Next, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea, because “the elements in the claims are not steps that could practically be performed in the human mind”. See Applicant’s Remarks, at p. 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion, and would like to point out that the claims were deemed to be directed to an abstract idea within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas (as opposed to the Mental Processes grouping). See the February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal, at p. 12 (describing the abstract idea as directed to rules or instructions for monitoring access to medication and analyzing time stamps on related data) and the September 25, 2024 Final Office Action, at pp. 9-10. Further, despite Applicant arguing that the actions control the physical hardware in real-time, the claims do not recite any steps that are performed in real-time. Rather, the data transmission step of generating the alert and transmitting the control message amount to mere transmitting of data over a network. A similar step was previously deemed to be recited at a high level of generality. As such, the devices and data transmission steps do not change how the claims are viewed under § 101. For at least these reasons, the claims are not deemed to recite an improvement to a technical field and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As such, the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained in this office action. Please see the amended rejections under the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section below, for further clarification and complete analysis.
Notice to Applicant Concerning Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Based on the analysis in the February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal, the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-21 were reversed. However, in light of Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 10, and 20 and Applicant’s filing of the April 1, 2026 RCE, prosecution was re-opened and the Examiner updated the prior art search. The updated prior art search identified closer prior art to the amended claims. Therefore, in light of Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 10, and 20, the combinations of the references previously cited in the September 25, 2024 Final Office Action are not relied upon to teach the newly amended claim limitations in independent claims 1, 10, and 20. Consequently, any arguments pertaining to the newly amended claim limitations are moot. Please see the amended rejections under the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 Section below, for further clarification and complete analysis.
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, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Following Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test, claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 21 are directed to a system for automated dispensing of medications, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See MPEP § 2106.03. Claims 10-12, 14, and 16-19 are directed to a method, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). See id. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., an article of manufacture). See id.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: (1) Mathematical Concepts; (2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and (3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claims 1, 10, and 20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 1 is a system claim, while claims 10 covers the matching method claim and claim 20 covers the matching non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites (and claims 11 and 20 substantially recite) the following limitations:
A system for automated dispensing of medications, comprising:
at least one dispensing cabinet configured to include a medication and having one more drawers;
one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet;
a motion sensor coupled with the one or more surveillance devices;
at least one data processor;
and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations comprising:
detecting a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet by the motion sensor determining an individual entering the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet;
activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet;
generating one or more transaction records associated with the recording;
linking the one or more transaction records to at least a portion of the recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event, wherein the one or more transaction records are linked to at least the portion of the recording by associating a first timestamp indicating a transaction time from a respective transaction record with a second timestamp set indicating a start time and an end time of the portion of the recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event;
transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet;
filtering, at the database and based on the one or more transaction records, a plurality of recordings to identify one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event;
determining the possible diversion event occurred based on the identified one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event by determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication; and
in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity category covers concepts related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (i.e., detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining that a possible diversion event occurred), but for the recitation of the generic computer components and functions also recited in claims 1, 10, and 20. That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in claims 1 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1, 10, and 20 encompasses a concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (i.e., detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining that a possible diversion event occurred).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1, 10, and 20 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, because they merely recite limitations for: (1) detecting an individual entering a medication detection area (i.e., following rules or instructions to determine when a person enters medication dispensing detection area); (2) generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event (i.e., following rules or instructions to generate records); (3) linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event (i.e., following rules or instructions to link data to other types of data); (4) filtering the recording data (i.e., following rules or instructions to organize data by filtering/sorting it); and (5) determining the possible diversion event occurred based on determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication (i.e., following rules or instructions to identify a possible diversion event occurred when a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the management of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(II); see also 2019 Revised PEG. Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 20 also recite an abstract idea that falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity category.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-19, and 21 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. Examiner notes that: (1) dependent claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 provide limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A; and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 do not provide any limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A. For example, claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 merely recite additional steps for describing the type of data that is used to generating the transactions records (i.e., these steps are deemed to be following instructions or rules for: detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining that a possible diversion event occurred).
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (f), (g), and (h).
Following Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In the present case, for independent claims 1, 10, and 20, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system for automated dispensing of medications, comprising (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
at least one dispensing cabinet configured to include a medication and having one more drawers (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a motion sensor coupled with the one or more surveillance devices (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
at least one data processor (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations comprising (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
detecting a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet by the motion sensor (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) determining an individual entering the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet;
activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
generating one or more transaction records associated with the recording;
linking the one or more transaction records to at least a portion of the recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event, wherein the one or more transaction records are linked to at least the portion of the recording by associating a first timestamp indicating a transaction time from a respective transaction record with a second timestamp set indicating a start time and an end time of the portion of the recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event;
transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
filtering, at the database (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and based on the one or more transaction records, a plurality of recordings to identify one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event;
determining the possible diversion event occurred based on the identified one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event by determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication; and
in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code (as described in claim 20) (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). However, the recitation of these limitations is made with a high-level of generality (i.e., using generic computer devices and software for: detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining that a possible diversion event occurred), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (g).
- The following is an example of court decisions that demonstrates merely applying instructions by reciting a computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed invention (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, e.g., see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l – similarly, the additional elements recited in claims 1, 10, and 20 described in the Prong One analysis of Step 2A above, invokes general-purpose computer (i.e., the system; dispensing cabinet; one or more surveillance devices, motion sensor; at least one data processor; and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code/at least one memory storing instructions) to perform the commonplace business method for generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; and filtering the recording data; and
- Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) – similarly, (1) the memory storing instructions and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code are examples of generic software that are used to tailor information (i.e., used to generate transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; link the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filter the recording data; and determine that a possible diversion event occurred); and (2) the step directed to: “activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet”, are examples of generic devices that are used to collect data (i.e., starting a camera to record data when the system determines that an individual has entered an area of detection).
- The following is an example of insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, e.g., see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc. – similarly, the steps of: “transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet” and “in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet”, described in claims 1, 10, and 20, are the equivalent of necessary data gathering and data outputting.
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1, 10, and 20 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 do not recite any additional elements outside of those identified as being directed to the abstract idea described above. Examiner notes that dependent claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 recite the following additional elements (in bold font below):
wherein the operations further comprise: accessing, at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet, the one or more transaction records and the recording captured by the one or more surveillance devices (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 5 and 14); and
wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on the at least dispensing cabinet (as described in claim 8)/wherein the one or more surveillance devices comprises a first surveillance device positioned on the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claim 17) (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and wherein a second surveillance device of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 8 and 17).
As such, the additional elements in dependent claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For instance, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21, when considered as a whole: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(e) and 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20 amount to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (g). Further the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than limitations consistent with what the courts recognize, or those having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d).
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20, as recited, the system; at least on dispensing cabinet having one or more drawers; one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet; motion sensor; at least one data processor; at least one memory storing instructions; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code; at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet; an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet; and the steps of: “activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “accessing, at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet, the one or more transaction records and the recording captured by the one or more surveillance devices”; and “at least one of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on the at least dispensing cabinet/wherein one or more surveillance devices comprises a first surveillance device positioned on the at least one dispensing cabinet, and wherein a second surveillance device of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet”, are generic computer components and functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to the system; at least on dispensing cabinet having one or more drawers; one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet; motion sensor; at least one data processor; at least one memory storing instructions; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code; at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet; an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet; and the steps directed to: “activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “accessing, at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet, the one or more transaction records and the recording captured by the one or more surveillance devices”; and “at least one of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on the at least dispensing cabinet/wherein one or more surveillance devices comprises a first surveillance device positioned on the at least one dispensing cabinet, and wherein a second surveillance device of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet”, these additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, because:
- Applicant’s disclosure supports this assertion. For example, Applicant discloses that the surveillance system may include one or more surveillance devices, for example, a video camera, a still image camera, an audio recorder, and/or the like. Applicant’s specification as filed on February 9, 2021, at paragraph [0035]. Further, Applicant discloses that one or more aspects of the subject matter can be realized with a general purpose processor, coupled to receive data and instructions from, and transmit data and instructions to a storage system. Applicant’s specification as filed on February 9, 2021, at paragraph [0075]. Such devices represent well-understood, routine, and conventional devices in the medical industry. Therefore, the devices (system; at least on dispensing cabinet having one or more drawers; one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet; motion sensor; at least one data processor; at least one memory storing instructions; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code; database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet; an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet) are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components in nature and known to the industry. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
Therefore, these limitations are also deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B for similar reasons since they are claimed in a generic manner.
- Regarding the steps and features directed to: “transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; and “in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet” - The following represents examples that courts have identified to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(d)):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – the limitations directed to: “transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; and “in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of medical data processing systems and methods, because they also represent mere collection and transmission of data over a network (i.e., collecting and transmitting either: (1) the linked transaction records; (2) an alert/notification indicating the possible medication diversion event has occurred; or (3) a control message, over a network).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, 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 functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 (which depend on claims 1 and 10 due to their respective chains of dependency), do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner notes that claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional components as described above in the subject matter eligibility rejections of independent claims 1 and 10. Dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 merely add limitations that further narrow the abstract idea described in independent claims 1 and 10. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Bufalini et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0070090), in view of:
- Wurm (Pub. No. US 2013/0282392);
- Speir et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0124997); and
- Vahlberg (Pub. No. US 2017/0109480).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 20,
- Bufalini et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0070090) teaches:
- a system for automated dispensing of medications, comprising:
at least one dispensing cabinet configured to include a medication and having one or more drawers (as described in claim 1) (Bufalini, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]; Paragraph [0023] teaches storage devices, systems, and methods. Paragraph [0023] further teaches that while some embodiments are discussed herein in reference to narcotics diversion, embodiments of the invention are not limited to monitoring for and/or reducing narcotic diversion (i.e., a system for automated dispensing of medications). Paragraph [0024] teaches a storage device (i.e., the system comprises at least one dispensing cabinet) that may be configured to store a number of different types and quantities of medications (i.e., the system is configured to include a medication) and may include a plurality of drawers (i.e., the at least one dispensing cabinet has one or more drawers) that may vary in size and style depending on, for example, the types of medications to be stored in the drawers, the quantities required (which may be dictated by the size or type of the facility or other area serviced by the automated storage device), and user preferences.);
- one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claim 1) (Bufalini, paragraph [0037]; Paragraph [0037] teaches that the system includes external image capturing devices which can be configured to primarily capture the user 30 (or users) at the storage device 5 (i.e., the system includes one or more surveillance devices). This way, if the user 30 is working in the bottom drawer of the storage device 5, the system can be configured to verify that the user 30 did not step out of the line-of-sight of the cameras 35 and/or 40, and/or that the user 30 is still indeed the same person, among other things. The external cameras can also be configured to serve potentially as a "witness" for narcotic transactions that may currently require two people be involved (per, e.g., the rules of the facility that is responsible for the narcotics) (i.e., the system includes an area of detection that includes the dispensing cabinet).);
…
- at least one data processor (as described in claim 1) (Bufalini, paragraph [0051]; Paragraph [0051] teaches that the system includes a processor 705.); and
- at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations comprising (as described in claim 1) (Bufalini, paragraph [0051]; Paragraph [0051] teaches that the system includes memory 710 which can be in communication with and/or included in the processor 705.);
- a method, comprising (as described in claim 10) (Bufalini, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]; Paragraph [0023] generally teaches storage devices, systems, and methods in reference to narcotics diversion, where embodiments of the invention are not limited to monitoring for and/or reducing narcotic diversion.);
- a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code, which when executed by at least one data processor, cause operations comprising (as described in claim 20) (Bufalini, paragraph [0051]; Paragraph [0051] teaches that the system includes memory 710 that can be in communication with and/or included in the processor 705. The memory 710 may comprise volatile and/or non-volatile memory (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) that stores content, data and/or any other information. For example, the memory 710 can store information generated by, transmitted from, and/or received by, the storage device 5. Also for example, the memory 710 typically stores software applications, instructions or the like for the processor 705 to perform steps associated with operation of the storage device 5 (i.e., the non-transitory computer-readable medium includes program code that is executed by the processor and causes the system to perform the medication dispensing monitoring).);
- detecting a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet … (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Bufalini, paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0041] teaches detecting “triggering events”, such as the storage device 5 unlocking the appropriate drawer(s) and/or other types of storage compartments. At any point and/or in response to one or more predetermined trigger events occurring (e.g., the user successfully logging into the storage device 5, the storage device 5 unlocking a drawer, the storage device 5 determining the user has opened a drawer, etc.) (i.e., detecting a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet), the storage device 5 (e.g., its processor and/or other control circuitry included therein) can be configured to activate one or more additional cameras that may have initially remained inactive. Further, paragraph [0041] teaches that the drawer monitoring device 50 may be activated, for example in response various trigger events described in paragraph [0041] (i.e., detecting a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet).);
- activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Bufalini, paragraphs [0038] and [0039]; Paragraph [0038] teaches that the image capturing devices such as cameras may be used to review narcotic transactions that may be scrutinized for diversion or to clear up a discrepancy that may have occurred at the storage device. Paragraph [0038] teaches that any cabinet event involving, e.g., a narcotic transaction can be a trigger event that causes activation of the external cameras 35 and 40 and the internal camera 45 for the drawer(s) being targeted by the user 30 and/or the storage device 5 (i.e., activating the one or more surveillance devices in response to detection of the triggering event). Paragraph [0039] teaches the different types of image capturing devices that may be used can be configured to capture video and/or still images.);
- generating one or more transaction records associated with the surveillance recording (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Bufalini, paragraph [0038]; Paragraph [0038] teaches that both internal and external image capturing device feeds can be synchronized by, e.g., the circuitry (e.g., processor) of the storage device 5, and/or a time stamp of the transaction (which may be in the form of metadata associated with the image data) can be generated and/or stored (i.e., generating one or more transaction records associated with the surveillance recording).);
- linking the one or more transaction records to at least a portion of the surveillance recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Bufalini, paragraph [0012]; Paragraph [0012] teaches that embodiments herein are used to capture and combine video and/or other images of the user and his/her interactions with the medication storage compartment(s) as well as the on-screen events (such as the user’s interactions with graphical user interface displays), synchronize the events and images together using time stamps and/or other metadata, and give administrators the ability to see the events and images played back at a moment’s notice and on demand by the administrator (i.e., linking the transaction records with the recording capturing the medication event, including any possible diversion), many of the common techniques used to divert narcotics will be caught much more quickly if not deterred altogether.) …;
…
- filtering, at the database and based on the one or more transaction records, a plurality of recordings comprising the recording, to identify one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Bufalini, paragraphs [0061], [0064], [0068], and [0083]-[0085]; Paragraph [0061] teaches that the administrative machine 805 can also enable administrators to easily navigate to the video capture in question based on the metadata associated with the video data. For example, paragraph [0064] teaches the system can be configured to enable users to flag interactions with the storage device. Paragraph [0064] further teaches that the flags, similar to other metadata included in the surveillance data, may then be used to sort, search and/or filter image data for relatively quick review of particular interactions with the storage device (i.e., filtering, at the database, the plurality of recordings based on the one or more transactions records in order to identify whether the possible diversion event occurred). ). Paragraph [0068] generally teaches that the functionality discussed in the invention may be configured and provided from a remotely located network device (e.g., the central server) and/or remote storage device (e.g., the database 815) (i.e., the filtering may be performed at a database that is remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet). Paragraph [0083] teaches that the system can search for metadata and/or other information that may be used by the algorithms that monitor for a surveillance trigger event (i.e., filtering the plurality of recordings based on the one or more transactions records in order to identify whether the possible diversion event occurred). Also, paragraphs [0084] and [0085] teach that the analysis at 1004 can include search for a count required flag among that metadata (see paragraph [0084]), where the count required flag is associated with a medication to be interacted with which may lead to capturing images of the user’s interactions with the storage device and/or the particular medication either immediately or after receiving a user hardware access command (i.e., the system is able to search and filter the plurality of recordings based on the one or more transactions records in order to identify possible diversion events).);
- determining the possible diversion event occurred based on the identified one or more surveillance recordings containing the possible diversion event … (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Bufalini, paragraphs [0063] and [0099]; Paragraph [0063] teaches the components shown in FIG. 8 can be configured to, for example, provide an optional ability to send an alert to hospital security via email or other electronic means. For example, upon detecting a suspicious activity (e.g., narcotic diversion, unauthorized access to the storage device based on, e.g., a failure to manually or automatically facially match a user to his/her picture on file, tampering with a camera included in the storage device, etc.) (i.e., examples of different ways the system is able to determine the possible diversion event occurred based on the identified one or more surveillance recordings containing the possible diversion event), the storage device 5, the administrator machine 805, the central server 810, the mobile device 820 and/or any other machine can be configured to generate and/or send an email message and/or other type of alert to the mobile device and/or computer of a security official. Paragraph [0099] also teaches that an alert security button 1112 can be included and used to call security. In response to selecting the alert security button 1112, for example, a message can be sent to security that identifies a particular storage device and its location for investigation. The user may select the alert security button 1112 when, for example, the image known to be the user logged into the storage device and shown in portion 1114 does not match the image of the person actually using the storage device as shown in portion 1104. In some embodiments, the system may provide facial recognition functionality and automatically determine whether the known image in portion 1114 matches that being captured by the storage device and shown in portion 1104. When the facial recognition feature indicates that the known image of the user does not match that of the current user (i.e., an example of the system being able to determine that a possible diversion event occurred based on the identified one or more surveillance recordings containing the possible diversion event), an alert may be presented in portion 1118.); and
- in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred … (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Bufalini, paragraphs [0063] and [0099]; Paragraph [0063] teaches that upon detecting a suspicious activity (e.g., narcotic diversion, unauthorized access to the storage device based on, e.g., a failure to manually or automatically facially match a user to his/her picture on file, tampering with a camera included in the storage device, etc.), the storage device 5, the administrator machine 805, the central server 810, the mobile device 820 and/or any other machine can be configured to generate and/or send an email message and/or other type of alert to the mobile device and/or computer of a security official (i.e., generating and sending an alert in response to determining that a possible diversion event occurred). Paragraph [0099] also teaches that the system may provide facial recognition functionality and automatically determine whether the known image in portion 1114 matches that being captured by the storage device and shown in portion 1104. When the facial recognition feature indicates that the known image of the user does not match that of the current user, an alert may be presented in portion 1118 (i.e., generating and sending an alert in response to determining that a possible diversion event occurred).).
- While Bufalini teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium including program code which causes the operation of: (1) “detecting a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet” (see Bufalini, paragraph [0041] - where the storage device (i.e., dispensing cabinet) automatically activates one or more additional cameras in response to a predetermined trigger event); and (2) “determining the possible diversion event occurred based on the identified one or more surveillance recordings containing the possible diversion event” (see Bufalini, paragraphs [0063] and [0099]), Bufalini does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring medication dispensing events, Wurm (Pub. No. US 2013/0282392) teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium including program code which causes the operations, comprising:
- a motion sensor coupled with the one or more surveillance devices (as described in claim 1) (Wurm, paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that the cabinet 10 may further include a motion detection sensor 15c capable of detecting motion near the cabinet 10.);
- detecting a triggering event at the least one dispensing cabinet by the motion sensor determining an individual entering the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Wurm, paragraphs [0008], [0041], and [0074]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that the cabinet 10 may further include a motion detection sensor 15c capable of detecting motion near the cabinet 10 (i.e., a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet). Upon detecting motion (i.e., detecting a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet by the motion sensor), the central control unit 30 activates the camera 15a and/or a user interface as described below. For example, paragraph [0074] teaches that when a user approaches the cabinet 10, the motion detector sensor 15c detects the motion, the first (outside) camera 15a is activated, and provides video (a video clip) of the user’s approach (i.e., detecting an individual entering the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet by the motion sensor determining an individual entering the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet).); and
- determining the possible diversion event occurred based on the identified one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event by determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Wurm, paragraphs [0008], [0039], [0043], [0064], [0070], and [0083]; Paragraph [0064] teaches that upon determining that the compartment 13 has been accessed, the method proceeds to operation 715, where the inventory control module(s) 14 associated with the accessed compartment 13 determines which, if any, medical items have been removed from the container 13. This information can also be compared with the visual record provided by the second (internal) camera 15b. Paragraph [0070] teaches that “medical items” may include “controlled or prescription items” (i.e., the medical items that are determined to have been removed by the inventory control module includes prescription items/medications). Paragraph [0039] teaches that the inventory control module 14 can be an image recognition system (i.e., CCD, CMOS, digital, video, etc.) capable of identifying medical items by the markings or based on the physical shape of the particular medical item container. Paragraph [0043] teaches that the central control unit 30 can interface with the various inventory control modules 14 to store and report an accurate inventory of all medical items located within the cabinet 10 (i.e., determining the quantity of medications that are retrieved from the dispensing cabinet). Paragraph [0083] teaches that there are numerous algorithms available for detecting diversion. According to one algorithm, the central database 52 is accessed to determine how much of any medical item each doctor, nurse or other user withdraws from the cabinet over a predetermined period of time such as a month, compares the amount with similarly situated users who access that cabinet 10 or other cabinets 10 within a network of the customer, or compares the amount with similarly situated users in that field of medicine and/or within that area of the country (i.e., the determination that the possible diversion event occurred comprises determining that the detected quantity of the medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication). If the standard deviation is over a certain number, the user is flagged (i.e., determining that the possible diversion event occurred comprises determining that the detected quantity of the medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication). Paragraph [0008] teaches that these features are beneficial for automatically tracking the transactions and inventories of all the cabinets.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for monitoring medication dispensing events at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method, and storage device for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, to incorporate steps and features directed to: (i) including a motion sensor coupled to the one or more surveillance devices; (ii) automatically detecting a triggering event by determining when a user enters the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet; and (iii) flagging users when determining that the detected quantity of the medication withdrawn from a medicine cabinet is different from an expected withdrawn quantity of the medication, as taught by Wurm, in order to automatically track the transactions and inventories of all the cabinets. See Wurm, paragraph [0008]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
- Further, the combination of: Bufalini, as modified in view of Wurm, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of video surveillance systems and methods, Speir et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0124997) teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium including program code which causes the operations, comprising:
- wherein the one or more transaction records are linked to at least the portion of the recording by associating a first timestamp indicating a transaction time from a respective transaction record with a second timestamp set indicating a start time and an end time of the portion of the surveillance recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Speir, paragraphs [0011] and [0014]; Paragraph [0011] teaches that the surveillance recording includes a timeline 102, which may include timestamps 110 at irregular intervals, such as at times coinciding with events (i.e., a first timestamp indicating a transaction time) or with start or stop times of available video. Paragraph [0014] teaches that surveillance events may for instance include alarm activations, personnel entry into or exit from monitored areas, and motion detections, and are time-stamped with at least a start time, and in some embodiments with both a start and an end time (i.e., a second timestamp set indicating a start time and an end time of the surveillance recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event). Surveillance events may further be associated with particular time periods of captured video; for instance, a recorder may not record video by default, [but] may record video for a period of seconds or minutes in response to alarm activation or motion detection within a camera field of view. Event tags 114 are positioned along timeline 102 and adjacent to availability indicators 112, and allow users at client device 18 to visually ascertain that certain time periods of available or unavailable video correspond to particular events (i.e., the transaction records are linked to the portion of the recording by associating the first timestamp that indicates a transaction time from the transaction record with the second timestamp set that indicates the start time and the end time of the surveillance recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event).).; and
- transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording from the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Speir, paragraphs [0014], [0016], and [0017]; Paragraph [0016] teaches that the system may keep a log of all video availability during certain time periods (i.e., transmitting a portion of the surveillance recording from the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the dispensing cabinet). Paragraph [0017] teaches that polled recorders 14 may also transmit event descriptions, start times, and stop times to server 16 (i.e., transmitting the linked one or more transaction records to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet). Paragraph [0014] teaches that these features are beneficial for including a description of associated events, such as precise start and stop times of events or available video.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of video surveillance systems and methods at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, method, and storage device for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, as modified in view of Wurm, to incorporate steps and features directed to: (i) linking the transaction records by associating a first time stamp indicating the transaction time with a second timestamp set indicating the start time and the end time of the portion of the surveillance recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event; and (ii) transmitting the linked transaction records to a remote database, as taught by Speir, in order to include a description of associated events, such as precise start and stop times of events or available video. See Speir, paragraph [0014]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
- Finally, while Bufalini teaches a system and method, comprising “generating an alert in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred” (see Bufalini, paragraphs [0063] and [0099]; - where upon detecting a suspicious activity (e.g., narcotic diversion), the storage device 5 can be configured to generate and/or send an email message and/or other type of alert to the mobile device and/or computer of a security official.); the combination of Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm and Speir, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for auditing medication administration, Vahlberg (Pub. No. US 2017/0109480) teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium including program code which causes the operations, comprising:
- in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claims 1, 10, and 20) (Vahlberg, paragraphs [0002] and [0050]; Paragraph [0050] teaches that the system may flag users who have a diversion score above a predetermined threshold (i.e., indicating a possible diversion). Further, flagged users may be investigated to determine whether the users are actually diverting medications and/or other medical supplies, or whether there is an alternative explanation. In some embodiments, the processor may be further configured to lock any flagged users out of the medication dispensing system such that the flagged users do not have physical access to the interior at block 328 (i.e., the Examiner is interpreting the system locking the flagged users out of the medication dispensing system as the equivalent of transmitting a control message to the dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers at the dispensing cabinet). Paragraph [0002] teaches that these features are beneficial for flagging possible diverters and preventing them from accessing medication dispensing systems.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for auditing medication administration at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, method, and storage device for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm and Speir, to incorporate a step and feature directed to transmitting a control message to dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers at the dispensing cabinet in response to determining that the possible diversion event occurred, as taught by Vahlberg, in order to flag possible diverters and prevent them from accessing medication dispensing systems. See Vahlberg, paragraph [0002]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claims 2 and 11,
- The combination of: Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 2 depends on) and claim 10 (which claim 11 depends on), as described above.
- Speir further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- the linking comprises linking the one or more transaction records with a surveillance device identifier of a surveillance device of the one or more surveillance devices that captured at least the portion of the recording (as described in claims 2 and 11) (Speir, paragraphs [0014] and [0016]; Paragraph [0014] teaches that the information stored with the description of associated events and the precise start and stop times includes information about the particular recorder and/or source from which video was taken (i.e., linking comprises linking the one or more transaction records with a surveillance device). For example, paragraph [0016] teaches that the database may maintain records of which recorders and sources captured the events, such as recorder A records from source X (i.e., the transactions records are linked with a surveillance device identifier).).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the system and method for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, described in the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 10, and 20 above similarly applies to this obviousness rejection, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 3 and 12,
- The combination of: Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 3 depends on) and claim 10 (which claim 12 depends on), as described above.
- Bufalini further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- the operations further comprise: storing, at the at least one dispensing cabinet, the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the recording (as described in claims 3 and 12) (Bufalini, paragraph [0059]; Paragraph [0059] teaches that database 815 may store monitoring data (and/or other data) associated with one or more medication storage devices including, for example, image data, image metadata (e.g., time of day image was captured, user identified by facial recognition functionality, drawer, related images, etc.), storage device name, storage device location, types of medication being stored, remaining quantities of medication being stored, whether the device is in-use or available, user identifying information associated with the current user and/or previous user(s) of the device, error information (including, e.g., the type of error and the time the device went into the error state), and/or any other information that may aid in facilitating a subsequent investigation or other type of review of past events (i.e., storing the linked transaction records and the record of the dispensing event at the dispensing cabinet).).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the system and method for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, described in the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 10, and 20 above similarly applies to this obviousness rejection, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 5 and 14,
- The combination of: Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 5 depends on) and claim 10 (which claim 14 depends on), as described above.
- Bufalini further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- the operations further comprise: accessing, at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet, the one or more transaction records and the recording captured by the one or more surveillance devices (as described in claims 5 and 14) (Bufalini, paragraph [0059]; Paragraph [0059] teaches that in response to receiving image and/or other related data (sometimes referred to herein as "monitoring data") from the storage device 5, the central server 810 may process and/or provide the monitoring data to the administrative machine 805, database 815, the mobile device 820, and/or any other networked devices (not shown) that may be used to view and/or otherwise interact with the monitoring data (i.e., accessing the one or more transaction records and the recording captured by the one or more surveillance devices at a remote database).).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the system and method for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, described in the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 10, and 20 above similarly applies to this obviousness rejection, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 7 and 16,
- The combination of: Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 7 depends on) and claim 10 (which claim 16 depends on), as described above.
- Wurm further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- the determining the individual entering the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet further comprises one or more of: the individual entering a patient room, the individual being located within a predetermined proximity of the at least one dispensing cabinet for a threshold amount of time, and the individual interacting with the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claims 7 and 16) (Wurm, paragraphs [0074] and [0075]; Paragraph [0075] generally teaches that once the user’s identity and the patient information is confirmed (see paragraph [0074]), the door 12 [to the cabinet] is unlocked and the second (inside) camera 15b is activated, thereby recording any activity of the user involving the inside of the cabinet 10 and withdrawal of any medical items from any of the compartments 13, and the particular compartment 13 which contains the medical item desired is unlocked (i.e., determining that the individual has entered the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet further comprises “the individual interacting with the dispensing cabinet”). Paragraph [0078] teaches that this feature is beneficial for: (1) noting which user took the medication; and (2) keeping records of the transaction with a video clip for a determined amount of time as required by regulations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for monitoring medication dispensing events at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, method, and storage device for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, to incorporate a step and feature directed to determining that a user is interacting with the dispensing cabinet and activating a camera to record any activity of the user involving the cabinet, as taught by Wurm, in order to: (1) note which user took the medication; and (2) keep records of the transaction with a video clip for a determined amount of time as required by regulations. See Wurm, paragraph [0008]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claims 8 and 17,
- The combination of: Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 8 depends on) and claim 10 (which claim 17 depends on), as described above.
- Bufalini further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- at least one of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on the at least dispensing cabinet, and wherein a second surveillance device of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claims 8 and 17) (Bufalini, paragraph [0036]; Paragraph [0036] teaches that the storage device 5 is shown in FIG. 2 as including two external image capturing devices, namely cameras 35 and 40, integrated into the display device 15 (i.e., one or more surveillance devices are positioned on the at least one dispensing cabinet) as well as an internal image capturing device, namely camera 45, integrated in the storage device 5 above its drawers (i.e., one or more second surveillance devices are positioned on an auxiliary device coupled with the dispensing cabinet).).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the system and method for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, described in the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 10, and 20 above similarly applies to this obviousness rejection, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 9 and 19,
- The combination of: Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 9 depends on) and claim 10 (which claim 19 depends on), as described above.
- Wurm further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- the operations further comprise: detecting, based on the recording, a quantity of the medication retrieved from the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claims 9 and 19) (Wurm, paragraphs [0039], [0043], [0064], [0070], and [0083]; Paragraph [0064] teaches that upon determining that the compartment 13 has been accessed, the method proceeds to operation 715, where the inventory control module(s) 14 associated with the accessed compartment 13 determines which, if any, medical items have been removed from the container 13. This information can also be compared with the visual record provided by the second (internal) camera 15b. Paragraph [0070] teaches that “medical items” may include “controlled or prescription items” (i.e., the medical items that are determined to have been removed by the inventory control module includes prescription items/medications). Paragraph [0039] teaches that the inventory control module 14 can be an image recognition system (i.e., CCD, CMOS, digital, video, etc.) capable of identifying medical items by the markings or based on the physical shape of the particular medical item container. Paragraph [0043] teaches that the central control unit 30 can interface with the various inventory control modules 14 to store and report an accurate inventory of all medical items located within the cabinet 10 (i.e., determining the quantity of medications that are retrieved from the dispensing cabinet). Paragraph [0083] teaches that there are numerous algorithms available for detecting diversion. According to one algorithm, the central database 52 is accessed to determine how much of any medical item each doctor, nurse or other user withdraws from the cabinet over a predetermined period of time such as a month (i.e., detecting a quantity of the medication retrieved from the dispensing cabinet).).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the system and method for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, described in the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 10, and 20 above similarly applies to this obviousness rejection, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 18 and 21,
- The combination of: Bufalini, as modified in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 21 depends on) and claim 10 (which claim 18 depends on), as described above.
- Bufalini further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- the one or more transaction records comprises one or more of a clinician identifier, a patient identifier, a transaction type, a transaction identifier, a transaction time, a witness identifier, and a medication type (as described in claims 18 and 21) (Bufalini, paragraphs [0059] and [0072]; Paragraph [0059] teaches that database 815 may store monitoring data (and/or other data) associated with one or more medication storage devices including, for example, types of medication being stored (i.e. the one or more transaction records comprises a medication type) and remaining quantities of medication being stored and/or any other information that may aid in facilitating a subsequent investigation or other type of review of past events. Paragraph [0072] also teaches that in some embodiments, data may be generated and saved at a central database and/or at the storage device, wherein the data is associated with transaction(s) conducted (e.g., dispensing of medication (i.e. the one or more transaction records comprises a transaction type), restocking of medication (i.e. the one or more transaction records comprises a transaction type), user identification information (i.e. the one or more transaction records comprises a clinician identifier), time conducted, etc.), even when surveillance is not possible.).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the system and method for assisting in a reduction in the likelihood of narcotic diversion taught by Bufalini, in view of: Wurm; Speir; and Vahlberg, described in the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 10, and 20 above similarly applies to this obviousness rejection, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights