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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 are currently pending. Claims 2, 4, 12, and 17 are canceled and Claims 21-23 are newly added in the Claims filed on September 22, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 16, Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite receiving “a number of new item units of the medical item type to be added to the dispensing device.” It is unclear if the aforementioned “new item units” comprise physical products (e.g. boxes containing physical units of products) or digital/electronic data elements (e.g. code denoting what items should be received by the dispensing device). In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets this language as reciting digital/electronic data elements indicating the new items to be received by the dispensing device. Examiner further notes that if the “new item units” were instead interpreted as physical products, this would necessitate a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter, as the as-filed Specification does not disclose physically adding a new product to the dispensing device. For example, [0020] of the as-filed Specification discloses “an ADM…used for compounding of an item, safety stock of an item, and refill stock for items distributed in certain areas,” and that “stock of an item that resides in both a centralized store and a distributed store may follow a pattern of measuring forward deployed inventory of the item at the distributed store against the centralized store inventory to determine the appropriate amount of inventory to forward deploy in view of the inventory of the item in the centralized store.” That is, the as-filed Specification discloses that the purpose of the ADM is to store refill stock, and/or that the ADM determines inventory to be deployed but the as-filed Specification does not actually disclose the operation of refilling and/or adding physical products to the ADM.
Additionally, specifically regarding Claims 1 and 16, Claims 1 and 16 recite causing a processor to perform various steps including “receiving a number of new item units…to be added to the dispensing device.” If the aforementioned language comprises receiving a physical product, it is unclear how a computer processor receives physical item units. Additionally, as stated above, Examiner notes that the receiving of physical products is not disclosed in the as-filed Specification. In the interest of compact prosecution, this will be interpreted as the processor receiving digital/electronic data denoting the new items.
Additionally, regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites “receiving, by the system, a number of new item units of the medical item type to be added to the dispensing device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the system,” and it is unclear what system this language is referring to. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “the system” as “a processor of the dispensing device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent Claims 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence from independent Claims 1, 11, and 16.
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, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, and 21 are drawn to a system for medication inventory management, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 11, 13, 15, and 22 are drawn to a method for medication inventory management, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 16, 18, 20, and 23 are drawn to a non-transitory medium for medication inventory management, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A medication dispensing system, comprising:
a dispensing device connected to a network and associated with a respective care area of a healthcare facility, the dispensing device comprising a plurality of storage compartments including a (i) locking compartment that only contains one dose of one item and that requires a user to have authorization for access to the locking compartment and which limits access to only the one dose of the one item within the locking compartment and a (ii) controlled compartment secured with a lid and for which a user must provide appropriate authorization to access the controlled compartment;
a memory device storing user settings that include authorization and identification data for users, and physical storage limitations of the plurality of storage compartments of the dispensing device; and
one or more processors configured to:
receive configuration data comprising (i) a required minimum number of item units of the medical item type to store in the dispensing device for a minimum time period and (ii) a required maximum number of item units of the medical item type to store in the dispensing device for a maximum time period;
receive a number of new item units of the medical item type to add to the dispensing device;
automatically assign a respective compartment of the plurality of storage compartments for storage of at least a portion of the new item units to be added to the dispensing device, wherein the respective compartment comprises the locking compartment or the controlled compartment;
automatically determine a first maximum number of item units of the medical item type storable in the respective compartment based on a volumetric space occupied by an item unit of the new item units when loaded into the respective compartment and an available volumetric space of the respective compartment;
automatically determine a second maximum number of item units of the medical item type storable in a second compartment of the plurality of storage compartments based on the volumetric space occupied by the item unit and an available volumetric space of the second compartment;
automatically overwrite a stored compartment maximum stock configuration value associated with the respective compartment with the required maximum number of item units when the required maximum number of item units does not exceed the first maximum number of item units;
when the required maximum number of item units exceeds the first maximum number of item units, automatically overwrite the stored compartment maximum stock configuration value with the first maximum number of item units and automatically assign the second compartment for storage of one or more of the new item units to increase storage capacity available in the dispensing device for the medical item type based on the second maximum number;
cause the received number of new item units to be added to the dispensing device, including to the respective compartment, and, when the second compartment is assigned, to the second compartment;
determine, based on the authorization and identification data, that the user has authorization to access a selected compartment comprising the respective compartment or, when assigned, the second compartment; and
cause the dispensing device to provide access to the selected compartment to dispense an item unit of the medical item type from the selected compartment to the user authorized to access the selected compartment based on the authorization and identification data.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, the steps of receiving configuration data and a number of new item units, assigning a respective compartment of the plurality of storage compartments for storage, determining a first maximum number of item units, determining a second maximum number of item units, overwriting a stored compartment maximum stock configuration value, causing the received number of item units to be added to the dispensing device, determining that a user has authorization to access a selected compartment, and providing access to the selected compartment recite at least collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the dispensing device itself, the memory, and the processor) as tools to perform the mental process, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of receiving configuration data and a number of new item units, assigning a respective compartment of the plurality of storage compartments for storage, determining a first maximum number of item units, determining a second maximum number of item units, overwriting a stored compartment maximum stock configuration value, causing the received number of item units to be added to the dispensing device, determining that a user has authorization to access a selected compartment, and providing access to the selected compartment recite at least following rules or instructions for stocking a dispensing device based on the determinations/data processing, and/or the filtering of data), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 11 and 16 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1, 11, and 16 is that Claim 11 recites a method and Claim 16 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium, whereas Claim 1 recites a system.
Dependent Claims 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20-23 include other limitations, for example Claims 3, 13, and 18 recite sending a notification of the assignment, Claims 5, 15, and 20 recite providing a compartment to store the minimum number of items, Claim 6 recites determining a minimum time period for storing the medical items, Claim 7 recites determining a length of stay for patients in the care area and updating the minimum number of items based on the length of stay, the number of patients, and a minimum time period, Claim 9 recites defining the minimum number of items based on user input and a threshold, Claim 10 recites setting a par inventory level for the medical item, and Claims 21-23 recite triggering a reordering of medical items, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Furthermore, specifically pertaining to dependent Claims 5, 15, and 20, Examiner notes that paragraphs [0020], [0027], and [0030] of the present Specification recite a “forward deployed inventory” (i.e. an inventory that is stored in the dispensing device), but there is no language in the Specification defining what “deploying a compartment” entails. Hence, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets “deploying a compartment” as equivalent to “providing a compartment” for storing the minimum number of stock items. Additionally, any limitations in dependent Claims 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20-23 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20-23 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 11, and 16.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the dispensing device and the one or more processors, the step of connecting and communicating with the device over the network) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the one or more processors, the memory device, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0059]-[0064] and [0066] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of the dispensing device being used for dispensing of medical items amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20-23 include other limitations, but these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the providing of a compartment recited in dependent Claims 5, 15, and 20), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1, 11, and 16, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, in this case, the dispensing device and the one or more processors, the step of connecting and communicating with the device over the network), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0059]-[0064] and [0066] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the one or more processors, the memory device) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives usage data, processes the usage data, and transmits a command to the dispensing device based on the processed usage data to the dispensing device over a network, e.g. see paragraph [0042] of the present Specification;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of authorization and identification data; and
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing authorization and identification data, and retrieving the authorization and identification data from storage in order to cause new items to be added to the compartments and to cause the reordered items to be dispensed;
Dependent Claims 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20-23 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the providing of a compartment recited in dependent Claims 5, 15, and 20), recording a customer' s order (e.g. the triggering of the reordering recited in dependent Claims 21-23), and/or do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1, 11, and 16, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning 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, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 are not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, and hence would be in condition for allowance if amended to overcome the rejections presented under 35 U.S.C. 101. The following represents Examiner’s characterization of the most relevant prior art references and the differences between the present claim language and the prior art references in view of 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103:
With regards to 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103, the following represents the closest prior art to the claimed invention, as well as the differences between the prior art and the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
Vahlberg (US 2008/0319790) teaches a medication dispenser comprising a plurality of storage compartments including locked and lidded compartments which may regulate access to the compartments based on a user entering appropriate identification information. However, Vahlberg does not teach determining a first and second maximum number of item units based on a volumetric space occupied by an item unit of the new item units, and further does not teach automatically overwriting a stored compartment maximum stock configuration value with the required maximum number of item units or with the first maximum number of item units and assigning a second compartment for storage.
Melander (US 2010/0274684) teaches an inventory management system that includes determining a minimum or safety stock for a period of time for each article based on a number of days consumption, and a maximum stock level. However, Melander does not teach determining a first and second maximum number of item units based on a volumetric space occupied by an item unit of the new item units, and further does not teach automatically overwriting a stored compartment maximum stock configuration value with the required maximum number of item units or with the first maximum number of item units and assigning a second compartment for storage. Additionally, Melander does not teach refilling or restocking the items and/or regulating access to the bins based on authenticating a user
Kostyniuk (US 2008/0000817) teaches an inventory management system that includes determining a volume capacity of a bin relative to the dimensions of mail items, and assigning bins based on the calculated volume capacity, wherein the system may assign a different bin for storage based on a different bin having a larger storage capacity. However, Kostyniuk does not teach automatically overwriting a stored compartment maximum stock configuration value with the required maximum number of item units or with the first maximum number of item units and assigning a second compartment for storage. Additionally, Kostyniuk does not teach refilling or restocking the items and/or regulating access to the bins based on authenticating a user.
Hill (US 2008/0183599) teaches an inventory management system that includes monitoring inventory for a plurality of items over a plurality of monitoring periods, wherein the items include minimum and maximum quantities of items. However, Hill does not teach determining a first and second maximum number of item units based on a volumetric space occupied by an item unit of the new item units, and further does not teach automatically overwriting a stored compartment maximum stock configuration value with the required maximum number of item units or with the first maximum number of item units and assigning a second compartment for storage. Additionally, Hill does not teach refilling or restocking the items and/or regulating access to the bins based on authenticating a user.
Beller (US 2008/0255880) teaches an inventory management system including tracking a patient’s length of stay at a hospital and determining a total number of required stock based on a number of patients and their length of stay. However, Beller does not teach determining a first and second maximum number of item units based on a volumetric space occupied by an item unit of the new item units, and further does not teach automatically overwriting a stored compartment maximum stock configuration value with the required maximum number of item units or with the first maximum number of item units and assigning a second compartment for storage.
The aforementioned references are understood to be the closest prior art. Various aspects of the claimed invention are known individually, but for the reasons disclosed above, the particular manner in which the elements of the present invention are claimed, when considered as an ordered combination, distinguishes from the aforementioned references and hence the invention recited in Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 is not considered to be disclosed by and/or obvious in view of the inventions of the closest prior art references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 22, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants allege that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it does not recite an abstract idea, specifically because it recites a particular physical control process for configuring and operating storage compartments of a medication dispensing device, e.g. see pgs. 15-16 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
As stated above, as presently claimed, it is unclear whether the receiving of the “new item units” comprises the receiving of a physical item or a data element indicating the physical item, and if the claim language did pertain to the receipt of a physical new item, this limitation is not disclosed by the Specification and would necessitate a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), e.g. see the grounds of rejection presented under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed limitations did pertain to receiving a physical product, assigning a compartment to store the physical product, and “causing” the physical product to be stored in the assigned compartment, this language does not provide any specificity regarding any type of physical operations of the dispensing device. For example, the claim language does not recite unlocking a compartment, ejecting a compartment, opening a lid of a compartment, or any type of specific operation that “causes” the physical product to be inserted into the dispensing device. Moreover, [0019] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the secure compartment can be (i.e. but is not required to be) a locking compartment, and the controlled compartment can be (i.e. but is not required to be) a lidded compartment, but this does not disclose what the contours of “providing access” to either of these compartments comprises. For example, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, “providing access” to a compartment may include displaying a message to a user notifying the user that they are approved to access a compartment, without actually physically opening the compartment. Hence, even if the claimed limitations recite the physical handling of a physical product, these limitations are not claimed (or disclosed by the as-field Specification) with sufficient specificity such that the claimed limitations do not recite an abstract idea. Therefore, whether the claimed limitations recite the mere analysis of digital/electronic data pertaining to physical products and the storing of the data on a dispensing device, or a physical process that receives a physical product, the claimed limitations nonetheless recite the aforementioned abstract idea.
Applicants further allege that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it integrates any abstract idea into a practical application and represents significantly more than an abstract idea, e.g. see pgs. 16-18 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
As stated above, the claimed limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, do not delineate a specific physical configuration of the dispensing device and/or a physical product. At most, the claimed limitations recite a series of particular calculations that dictate a particular configuration for where physical products are intended to be stored in and in what quantities. Hence, the claimed limitations do not recite a specific technological process for configuring and controlling a medication dispensing machine.
Furthermore, [0018]-[0022] of the as-filed Specification disclose the particular methodology in determining storage capabilities of the various compartments, and [0037] of the as-filed Specification discloses the particulars of the overwriting operation, but these represent limitations pertaining to the data analysis and/or calculations. None of the aforementioned disclosures explain the particulars of the actual steps of the receiving of physical product, the loading of the received physical product, and the providing of access to the loaded physical product, and hence the disclosures do not recite any type of improvement to a specific physical operation of the dispensing device.
Hence the claimed invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additionally, the aforementioned considerations are also applied to Step 2 of the two-prong analysis in that the claimed invention at most recites a particular intended storage schema for the dispensing device, but does not recite any particular physical operations of the dispensing device. Hence, the claimed limitations are not properly interpreted as improving the operation of the dispensing device itself and the claimed limitations, even when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Hence the claimed invention does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Examiner further notes that “the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter,” and specifically, a finding of a lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that claimed invention is therefore patent eligible. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(I).
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Savage (US 2012/0203376) – teaches a dispensing system including locking compartments. Also teaches tracking inventory levels and ordering items based on the tracked inventory levels. Also teaches tracking authorizations for access to specific compartments.
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 JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights