DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over William K. Holmes (US 2017/0015445 A1 – hereinafter Holmes) in view of Kim et al. (US 2004/0098950 A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Re Claim 1:
Holmes discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: generating, by one or more processors (50), an order for a drug product packaging system (10) to dispense a quantity of drug product into respective ones of a plurality of pouches (see paragraph [0029 and 0033]); associating, by one or more processors (50), a plurality of canisters (22) in the drug product packaging system (10) with each other as a group (see paragraph [0031]), each of the plurality of canisters (22) containing the drug product (see paragraph [0031]); and operating, using the one or more processors (50), the drug product packaging system (10) to dispense the quantity of drug product into respective ones of the plurality of pouches by drawing from the plurality of canisters (22) (see Figs. 1-19), but fails to specifically teach to operating, using the one or more processors, the drug product packaging system to dispense the quantity of drug product into respective ones of the plurality of pouches by drawing from the plurality of canisters in round-robin fashion by switching between ones of the plurality of canisters when transitioning between ones of the plurality of pouches.
Kim teaches operating, using one or more processors (computer), a drug product packaging system to dispense a quantity of drug product into respective ones of a plurality of pouches (12) by drawing from a plurality of canisters (1a-1g, 1h-1r) in round-robin fashion by switching between ones of the plurality of canisters (1a-1g, 1h-1r) when transitioning between ones of the plurality of pouches (12) (see paragraphs [0026-0033 and 0036-0041]) (see Fig. 1-4). Examiner notes that Kim provides structure which is capable of round-robin switching, given a particular prescription. Kim gives an example where one pouch would contain pills form canisters a, b, c, another pouch would contain pills from a, b, d, and another pouch would contain pills from a, b, e. Switching from c to d to e for each pouch is round-robbin dispensing. Examiner notes that such would also apply in a prescription which only required c in one pouch, d in one pouch, and e in one pouch, for such would not change the scope of the invention and would not require further inventive skill. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Holmes with that of Kim, so as to pack tablets efficiently and quickly.
Further Re Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15:
Holmes discloses determining, by one or more processors (50), that one of the plurality of canisters is empty when operating the drug product packaging system to dispense the quantity of drug product into one of the plurality of pouches; and , initiating by one or more processors (50), refilling the plurality of canisters responsive to determining that the one of the plurality of canisters is empty (see paragraphs [0039 and 0055]).
Further Re Claims 4 and 16:
Holmes discloses maintaining, by one or more processors (50), the order without generating a new order for the drug product packaging system to dispense the quantity of drug product into the respective ones of the plurality of pouches in response to determining that the one of the plurality of canisters is empty (see paragraph [0039] – grab a canister from a refill area, when a canister is empty).
Further Re Claim 9:
Holmes discloses wherein a number of the plurality of canisters in the group is greater than eight and less than or equal to thirty-two (see paragraph [0031]).
Further Re Claims 10 and 11:
Holmes discloses wherein associating the plurality of canisters in the drug product packaging system with each other as the group comprises: receiving, by one or more processors (50), user input selecting the group from among the plurality of canister grouping options (active group, non-active group).
Further Re Claims 12 and 17:
Holmes discloses wherein the drug product is a nutraceutical (see paragraph [0025]).
Re Claim 13:
Holmes discloses a system, comprising: one or more processors; one or more memories that comprise computer readable program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see paragraph [0033]) comprising: generating an order (by way of 50) for a drug product packaging system (10) to dispense a quantity of drug product into respective ones of a plurality of pouches (see paragraph [0029 and 0033]); associating a plurality of canisters (22) in the drug product packaging system (10) with each other as a group (see paragraph [0031]), each of the plurality of canisters (22) containing the drug product (see paragraph [0031]); and operating the drug product packaging system (10) to dispense the quantity of drug product into respective ones of the plurality of pouches by drawing from the plurality of canisters (22) (see Figs. 1-19), but fails to specifically teach one or more processors; that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: to dispense the quantity of drug product into respective ones of the plurality of pouches by drawing from the plurality of canisters in round-robin fashion by switching between ones of the plurality of canisters when transitioning between ones of the plurality of pouches.
Kim teaches one or more processors (computer); that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: to dispense a quantity of drug product into respective ones of the plurality of pouches (12) by drawing from a plurality of canisters (1a-1g, 1h-1r) in round-robin fashion by switching between ones of the plurality of canisters (1a-1g, 1h-1r) when transitioning between ones of the plurality of pouches (12). Examiner notes that Kim provides structure which is capable of round-robin switching, given a particular prescription. Kim gives an example where one pouch would contain pills form canisters a, b, c, another pouch would contain pills from a, b, d, and another pouch would contain pills from a, b, e. Switching from c to d to e for each pouch is round-robbin dispensing. Examiner notes that such would also apply in a prescription which only required c in one pouch, d in one pouch, and e in one pouch, for such would not change the scope of the invention and would not require further inventive skill. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Holmes with that of Kim, so as to pack tablets efficiently and quickly.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Kim and further in view of Stewart W. Stephens (US 2019/0156932 A1 – hereinafter Stephens).
Re Claims 5-8:
Holmes in view of Kim discloses the device of claim 1 including pinned canisters (see Holmes), but fails to specifically teach wherein the plurality of canisters comprises smart canisters.
Stephens further in view teaches smart canisters (see Fig. 3). Re Claims 7 and 8: Stephens further in view teaches wherein a lot number (expiration date) of the drug product contained in a first one of the plurality of canisters is different from a lot number of the drug product contained in a second one of the plurality of canisters (see paragraph [0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Holmes in view of Kim with that of Stephens so as to allow for increased information for recognizing a canister. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that not all canisters would need to be the same as seen fit in view of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm est.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651