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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 30 January 2020 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25 were previously pending in this application. The amendment filed 20 November 2025 has been entered and the following has occurred: 1, 24, & 25 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or added.
Claims 1, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25 remain pending in the application.
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, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25 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.
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 24), machine (claims 1, 8-12, 16-18, & 20), and manufacture (claim 25) which recite steps of:
receive, at a server, information from a user device of a user, and
use, at the server, the received information to process a request for a product to be made available to the user; and
a plurality of devices in communication with the server;
the server configured to:
determine, at the server, at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user, and
provide an indication to the user of a selection of the at least one of the plurality of devices;
determine, at the server, the at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user based at least in part on location information, wherein the location information comprises location information of the user and location information of the plurality of devices; and
select, at the server, at least one of the plurality of devices based on information of an ability of the user to travel to at least one of the plurality of devices, wherein the information of an ability to travel is based upon mobility information of the user;
select the drone to deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user; and wherein
the product comprises a consumer healthcare product selected from a plurality of available consumer healthcare products using a diagnostics engine for determining one or more medical symptoms of the user.
These steps of receiving information from a user device of a user, using the received information to process a request for a medical product to be made available to the user, determining at least one device to make the product available to the user, and providing an indication to the user of a selection of the at least one device, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the receiving information from a user device of a user and using the received information to process a request for a medical product language, receiving information from a user device regarding a user and using said information to process a request for a medical product in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of a doctor and/or pharmacist receiving information about a patient associated with a particular prescription/medication request and said doctor or pharmacist processing said request, e.g. denying or fulfilling, based on the received information. Similarly, the limitation of determining one or more devices to make the product available to the user and providing an indication to the user of a selection of the one or more devices, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, such as the doctor or pharmacist determining a particular medication vending machine to populate and dispense the medication for the user upon the request being fulfilled, and telling the user or electronically notifying the user of which particular machine was chosen and where said machine is located, such as by physically telling the user and/or using a generic computer notification tool to notify the user. For example, but for the determining at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user and selecting at least one of the plurality of devices based on information of an ability of the user to travel, determining one or more devices and selecting from the one or more devices, a most convenient device, based on a user’s ability to travel, in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of a doctor and/or pharmacist sending an approved refill request to a convenient location for the user after querying the user about varying information regarding travelability, and/or other convenience criteria and making a decision about which location is most convenient to the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. While varying portions of the claim may rely on the user making use of generic computer technology to perform said “mental process”, such as selecting a drone for delivery of said protect, according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process if the mental process is being performed on a generic computer or a computer is being used as a mere tool to perform a mental process, e.g. using a generic computer notification system for notifying the user. Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the reasonings found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 8-12, 16-18, & 20, reciting particular aspects of how determining which of the plurality of devices is most convenient for a user based on varying user parameter and/or enabling a user to perform one or more actions, may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a server, a user device, a plurality of devices in communication with the server, a computer program/software, one or more processors, amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see Applicant’s Specification p. 30, ll. 13-19 for a server/diagnostics engine; p. 30, ll. 25-28 for a user device; p. 30, ll. 29 – p. 31, ll. 16 for a plurality of devices in communication with the server; p. 31, ll. 33 – p. 32, ll. 4 for a computer program/software; p. 31, ll. 25 – p. 32, ll. 4 for one or more processors; see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of as receiving information from a user device of a use and providing an indication to the user of the selection of the one or more devices, selecting drone delivery of a product, receiving mobility information, receive data from the consumer healthcare product amounts to mere data gathering; recitation of using the received information to process a request for a product to be made available to the user and determining at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user, determining the at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user based at least in part on location information, and/or selecting at least one of the plurality of devices based on information of an ability of the user to travel to at least one of the plurality of devices based on a variety of information of an ability to travel, selecting drone delivery based on received mobility information, determining one or more medical symptoms of the user based on data collected by the consumer healthcare product amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; recitation of providing an indication to the user and selecting a drone to deliver a product to a user also amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of one or more generic devices and based on the Specification, said devices generally relating to the processing, vending, and fulfillment of patient prescription in a remote setting, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
NOTE: The independent claims in their current form do not recite the actual/physical delivery or fulfillment of the product by the drone, under broadest reasonable interpretation (i.e. the system makes a selection for a drone “which delivers” the product and is thereby “selected to deliver the product to the user”, but the claims do not recite the drone actually making or fulfilling said delivery such as a limitation reciting “delivering” the product to the user. That is, “wherein at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a drone which delivers the product to the user” is merely electing the type of device, i.e. “which delivers” is merely a descriptor of the drone, not a physical action that actively takes place or is being actuated by the system). Therefore if the actual delivery/fulfillment of the product by the drone was positively recited, this would constitute a practical application.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 8-12, 16-18, & 20, which recite limitations relating to a computerized system, a server, a plurality of devices, a drone, a machine to dispense the product/vending machine, a robot, an interactive tool, and/or a diagnostics engine, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea see Applicant’s Specification p. 30, ll. 13-19 for a computerized system/server; p. 30, ll. 29 – p. 31, ll. 16 for a plurality of devices; p. 26, ll. 18-23 for a drone; p. 26, ll. 24-29 for a machine to dispense the product/vending machine; p. 26, ll. 30- p. 27, ll. 4 for a robot; p. 9, ll. 31-32 for an interactive tool; p. 4, ll. 1-2 & claim 22 for a diagnostics engine; see MPEP 2106.05(f); claims 17-18 & 20, which recite limitations relating to making use of location information and/or travel ability of a user, such as received location information of the user/plurality of devices, which implies receiving of said location information, receiving one or more transmissions for providing live video-chat between a user and a pharmacist, receiving one or more diagnostics/tests and/or medical symptoms of the user, additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering; claim 18, which recites limitations relating to using location information of the user/plurality of devices selecting one of the plurality of devices based on information of an ability of the user to travel, utilizing diagnostic/symptom information to determine an optimal medical product additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea by selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; claims 8-12 & 16, which recite limitations relating to utilizing a generic drone, pharmacy, vending machine, and/or robot implementation for delivering the medical product to the user, and/or a tool/engine for generally considering patients symptomology in determining an appropriate medical product additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receiving information from a user device of a use and providing an indication to the user of the selection of the one or more devices, selecting drone delivery of a product, receiving mobility information, receive data from the consumer healthcare product, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); using the received information to process a request for a product to be made available to the user and determining at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user, determining the at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user based at least in part on location information, and/or selecting at least one of the plurality of devices based on information of an ability of the user to travel to at least one of the plurality of devices based on a variety of information of an ability to travel, selecting drone delivery based on received mobility information, determining one or more medical symptoms of the user based on data collected by the consumer healthcare product, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); maintaining one or more records regarding a plurality of devices in communication with the server, such as for choosing amongst the devices, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); storing computerized instructions for performing the computerized method, storing information about the user, the plurality of devices, the product being requested, storing instructions/framework for communications between varying devices, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 8-12, 16-18, & 20, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 17-18 & 20, which recite limitations relating to making use of location information and/or travel ability of a user, such as received location information of the user/plurality of devices, which implies receiving of said location information, receiving one or more transmissions for providing live video-chat between a user and a pharmacist, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claim 18, which recites limitations relating to using location information of the user/plurality of devices selecting one of the plurality of devices based on information of an ability of the user to travel, utilizing diagnostic/symptom information to determine an optimal medical product, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 17-18 & 20, which recite limitations relating to receiving and maintaining location information and/or travel ability of a user, such as received location information of the user/plurality of devices, receiving one or more diagnostics/tests and/or medical symptoms of the user such as by health assessment, i.e. health record such as tracking weight, tracking sleep pattern, bio-markers, etc., e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); claims 8-12, 16-18, & 20, which recite limitations relating to one or more computerized or automated methods, thereby storing computerized instructions for performing said methods, storing one or more received information/data, storing one or more communication frameworks for videoconferencing between a provider and patient, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); claims 16-18, which disclose one or more functionalities relating to a an interactive tool, i.e. application, API, interface, software, etc., for interaction by the user e.g., a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
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, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0089394), hereinafter “Hyde”, in view of Potts et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0322947), hereinafter “Potts”, further in view of Saric et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0292378), hereinafter “Saric”.
Claim 1 –
Regarding Claim 1, Hyde discloses a system comprising:
a server (See Hyde Par [0148] which discloses the use of a server as a computing device or remote computer to perform the methods described throughout Hyde) configured to:
receive, at the server, information from a user device of a user (See Hyde Par [0128] which discloses providing input related to a subject seeking a medical product or service by way of mobile phone, compute tablet, computer laptop, or other computing device), and
use, at the server, the received information to process a request for a product to be made available to the user (See Hyde Par [0128] which discloses providing input related to a subject seeking a medical product or service by way of mobile phone, compute tablet, computer laptop, or other computing device; See Hyde Par [0020] & [0023] which discloses receiving a request for a particular medical service or product by the subject or a provider on behalf of the subject); and
a plurality of devices in communication with the server (See Hyde Par [0017] which discloses one or more kiosks as part of a network of kiosks);
the server configured to:
determine, at the server, at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service) and to
provide, at the server, an indication to the user of a selection of at least one of the plurality of devices (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service);
determine, at the server, the at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user based at least in part on location information (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service), wherein
the location information comprises location information of the user (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service) and location information of the plurality of devices (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service), and
select, at the server, at least one of the plurality of devices based on information of an ability of the user to travel to at least one of the plurality of devices (See Hyde Par [0189]-[0190] which discloses an individual from the US traveling to Europe on a business trip requiring them to stay in Europe, based on the user’s inability to travel to the US, the system utilizes a kiosk near his hotel in Paris rather than one in the US), wherein
the information of an ability to travel is based upon mobility information of the user (See Hyde Par [0189]-[0190] which discloses an individual from the US traveling to Europe on a business trip requiring them to stay in Europe, based on the user’s inability to travel to the US, the system utilizes a kiosk near his hotel in Paris rather than one in the US, which could be considered mobility information under BRI), wherein
the product comprises a consumer healthcare product selected from a plurality of available consumer healthcare products using a diagnostics engine for determining one or more medical symptoms of the user (See Hyde Par [0018] & [0060] which discloses interaction with the user to determine symptoms of the subject; See Hyde Par [0165]-[0166] which discloses one or more interaction devices; See Hyde Par [0018] which discloses assisting in the assessment, i.e. diagnosis, of a subject, and assigned a health status indicator which indicates if medical services or products may be delivered, i.e. fulfilled to the user), wherein
the diagnostics engine comprises one or more of:
the server (See Hyde Par [0148] which discloses the use of a server as a computing device or remote computer to perform the methods described throughout Hyde); and
the user device of the user (See Hyde Par [0128] which discloses providing input related to a subject seeking a medical product or service by way of mobile phone, compute tablet, computer laptop, or other computing device).
While Hyde generally discloses fulfillment/delivery of a consumer healthcare product for a user, Hyde does not explicitly disclose the use of a drone configured to deliver the product to the user.
at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a drone which delivers the product to the user, wherein
the server is further configured to select the drone to deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user.
However, Potts discloses at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a drone which delivers the product to the user (See Potts Par [0037]-[0038] which discloses one or more courier or delivery services, such as of a prescription delivery service, via drone delivery) and the server is further configured to select the drone to deliver the product to the user (See Potts Par [0019] which discloses delivery of the prescription medication to the patient may be coordinated by the prescription delivery service server; See Potts Par [0037]-[0038] which discloses one or more automatically coordinated courier or delivery services, i.e. via said prescription delivery service server, such as of a prescription delivery service via drone delivery). The disclosure of Potts is directly applicable to the disclosure of Hyde because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities such as both being directed towards automated user prescription fulfillment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Hyde which already discloses air conveyance, i.e. delivery, of the one or more products in the form of airplane, rocket, helicopter, to further include drone delivery in particular, because this allows for automated delivery services of prescription medication (See Potts Par [0037]).
While Hyde and Potts generally disclose the use of a drone to arrange and deliver medicine to a user, and consideration of mobility/terrain information for prescription fulfillment purposes, Hyde and Potts are relatively silent on determining to use a drone when mobility information is determined as difficult or not possible as given by:
deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user.
However, Saric discloses delivering the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user (See Saric Par [0006] & [0008] which discloses it being desirable to perform prescription delivery for patients that are immobile or lack means of transportation, and specifically mentions that a sick or immobile patient may be unable or unwilling to leave their home to physically visit a pharmacy to pick up medications/prescriptions; See Saric Par [0015] which discloses the system/server determining whether one or more prescriptions are eligible to be delivered to a patient based on varying factors). The disclosure of Saric is directly applicable to the discloses of Hyde and Potts, because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities such as both being directed towards automated user product fulfillment, e.g. medication/prescription.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Hyde and Potts which generally discloses the use of a drone to arrange and deliver a product to a user based on varying factors, to further include a system/server determining to deliver a medication to a patient when the factor is mobility information of the patient, as disclosed by Saric, because a sick or immobile patient may be unable or unwilling to leave their home to physically visit a pharmacy to pick up medications/prescriptions, and therefore allows for prescription fulfillment for those patients (See Saric Par [0006], [0008], & [0015]).
Claim 8 –
Regarding Claim 8, Hyde, Potts, and Saric disclose the system of claim 1 in its entirety. Hyde and Potts further disclose a system, wherein:
the drone is configured to deliver the product to the user from a repository of products (See Hyde Par [0199]-[0200] which discloses a medication delivery system with requested information relating to the address, i.e. location of the user, See Hyde Par [0168] which discloses the use of air conveyance, i.e. delivery, of the one or more products in the form of airplane, rocket, helicopter, albeit not by “drone” per se; See Potts Par [0037] for drone delivery of prescription medication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Hyde, Potts, and Saric which already discloses air conveyance, i.e. delivery, of the one or more products in the form of airplane, rocket, helicopter, to further include drone delivery in particular, because this allows for automated delivery services of prescription medication (See Potts Par [0037]).
Claim 9 –
Regarding Claim 9, Hyde, Potts, and Saric disclose the system of claim 8 in its entirety. Hyde and Potts further disclose a system, wherein:
the repository of products comprises a pharmacy (See Hyde Par [0017] which discloses that the kiosk can be located at a pharmacy; See Hyde Par [0054] which discloses that dispensation can be transmitted to a third party such as a pharmacy and in Hyde Par [0207] is subsequently dispensed at said pharmacy kiosk; See Hyde Par [0183] which discloses that if restocking is necessary, an alert can be sent to a pharmacy to replenish the storage of the kiosk, i.e. constituting the repository of products is at the pharmacy under BRI; See Potts Par [0037] for drone delivery of prescription medication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Hyde, Potts, and Saric which already discloses air conveyance, i.e. delivery, of the one or more products in the form of airplane, rocket, helicopter, to further include drone delivery in particular, because this allows for automated delivery services of prescription medication (See Potts Par [0037]).
Claim 10 –
Regarding Claim 10, Hyde, Potts, and Saric disclose the system of claim 1 in its entirety. Hyde further discloses a system, wherein:
at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a machine configured to dispense the product to the user (See Hyde Par [0081], [0086] which discloses the kiosk dispensing the medical product or service; See Hyde Par [0183] which further describes a pharmacy packaging and dispensation, i.e. vending, machine).
Claim 11 –
Regarding Claim 11, Hyde, Potts, and Saric disclose the system of claim 10 in its entirety. Hyde further discloses a system, wherein:
the machine comprises a vending machine (See Hyde Par [0035] which describes kiosk, similar to restocking a vending machine, i.e. the kiosk is understood to read on a vending machine since it has dispensing capabilities as seen at Par [0081], [0086] which discloses the kiosk dispensing the medical product or service; See Hyde Par [0183] which further describes a pharmacy packaging and dispensation, i.e. vending, machine).
Claim 12 –
Regarding Claim 12, Hyde, Potts, and Saric disclose the system of claim 1 in its entirety. Hyde further discloses a system, wherein:
at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a robot configured to provide the product for the user (See Hyde Par [0172] which discloses the user being assisted by one or more robotic agents, i.e. for performance of the methods described throughout Hyde).
Claim 16 –
Regarding Claim 16, Hyde, Potts, and Saric disclose the system of claim 1 in its entirety. Hyde further discloses a system, further comprising:
an interactive tool configured to enable a user to perform one or more actions (See Hyde Par [0018] & [0060] which discloses interaction with the user to determine symptoms of the subject; See Hyde Par [0165]-[0166] which discloses one or more interaction devices).
Claim 17 –
Regarding Claim 17, Hyde, Potts, and Saric disclose the system of claim 16 in its entirety. Hyde further discloses a system, wherein:
the one or more actions (only one or more of the actions has to be met) comprises:
a health assessment (See Hyde Par [0046], [0060], [0063] which discloses the system being able to perform certain tasks such as diagnosis, run tests, etc. on the subject);
a drug interaction test to determine whether there are any drugs that the user is allergic to (See Hyde Par [0029] which discloses the system alerting the subject if the subject is seeking a product or service that may cause adverse reactions, such as via allergies; See Hyde Par [0061] which discloses a health status dataset may include indications, values or statistics of various bodily measurements or results of assays or sensed parameters, including but not limited to blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature, height, weight, body mass index, pupil size, blood glucose, muscle mass, viral load, viral infection, bacterial infection, bacterial load, pregnancy status, pharmaceutical or other drug presence or level, tumor presence or status, blood type, allergy status, nutrition status, and others, i.e. test for determining allergy status);
a sports test (This limitation does not have to bet met for Hyde to fully read on this claim);
tracking menstrual cycle (While not “menstrual cycle” per se, see Hyde Par [0061] which discloses determining health status relating to pregnancy status which could make use of menstrual cycle data, and further states in Par [0020] that feminine hygiene products may be requested by the user);
tracking weight (See Hyde Par [0185] which discloses being able to measure the patient’s body weight);
tracking sleep pattern (While not “sleep pattern” per se, see Hyde Par [0075] which discloses one or more characteristics being able to be measured by the system such as self-reported sleepiness); and
providing one or more bio-markers for assessment (See Hyde Par [0061] which discloses biological assays, i.e. bio-markers, being used for assessment; See Hyde Par [0127] which discloses biochemical measurement).
Claim 18 –
Regarding Claim 18, Hyde, Potts, and Saric disclose the system of claim 16 in its entirety. Hyde further discloses a system, wherein:
the interactive tool is configured to utilize a facial recognition algorithm (See Par [0021] which discloses visual inspection by an automated computing device to determine skin tone or color, etc.; See Par [0084] which discloses a camera being able to determine if a subject is in pain, shows signs of trauma, evaluation of appearance (skin, hair, nails) movement, and cognition by way of facial recognition) to determine conditions of one or more of (only one of the following conditions has to be met):
skin condition (See Par [0075] which discloses measuring specific characteristics of the subject include appearance of skin via sensors such as those described in Par [0067] which further states that a camera, imager, etc., can be utilized; See Par [0084] which discloses a camera being able to determine if a subject is in pain, shows signs of trauma, evaluation of appearance (skin, hair, nails) movement, and cognition by way of facial recognition);
depression (See Par [0084] which discloses a camera being able to determine if a subject is in pain, shows signs of trauma, evaluation of appearance (skin, hair, nails) movement, and cognition, which could include depression, by way of facial recognition);
stress (See Par [0084] which discloses a camera being able to determine if a subject is in pain, shows signs of trauma, i.e. stress, evaluation of appearance (skin, hair, nails) movement, and cognition by way of facial recognition); and
high/low blood pressure to a user (See Par [0075] which discloses measuring specific characteristics of the subject such as those described in Par [0185] such as blood pressure; See Par [0084] which discloses a camera being able to determine if a subject is in pain, shows signs of trauma, evaluation of appearance (skin, hair, nails) movement, and cognition by way of facial recognition).
Claim 20 –
Regarding Claim 20, Hyde, Potts, and Saric disclose the system of claim 1 in its entirety. Hyde further discloses a system, wherein:
the server is configured to:
enable a live video-chat between a user and pharmacist (See Par [0029] which discloses allowing for interaction with a healthcare worker either by telephone, video phone, email, chat, etc., i.e. enabling a live video-chat; See Par [0048] which discloses the healthcare worker being a doctor, nurse, mid-wife, nurse practitioner, etc., and could reasonably constitute a pharmacist and further discloses instant messaging, audio, or video transmission means).
Claim 24 –
Regarding Claim 24, Hyde discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a server, information from a user device of a user (See Hyde Par [0148] which discloses the use of a server as a computing device or remote computer to perform the methods described throughout Hyde; See Hyde Par [0128] which discloses providing input related to a subject seeking a medical product or service by way of mobile phone, compute tablet, computer laptop, or other computing device);
using, at the server, the received information to process a request for a product to be made available to the user (See Hyde Par [0128] which discloses providing input related to a subject seeking a medical product or service by way of mobile phone, compute tablet, computer laptop, or other computing device; See Hyde Par [0020] & [0023] which discloses receiving a request for a particular medical service or product by the subject or a provider on behalf of the subject);
determining, at the server, at least one of a plurality of devices to make the product available to the user (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service); and
providing, at the server, an indication to the user of the selection of the at least one of the plurality of devices (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service);
determining, at the server, the at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user based at least in part on location information (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service), wherein
the location information comprises location information of the user (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service) and location information of the plurality of devices (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service), and
selecting, at the server, at least one of the plurality of devices based on information of an ability of the user to travel to at least one of the plurality of devices (See Hyde Par [0189]-[0190] which discloses an individual from the US traveling to Europe on a business trip requiring them to stay in Europe, based on the user’s inability to travel to the US, the system utilizes a kiosk near his hotel in Paris rather than one in the US), wherein
the information of an ability to travel is based upon mobility information of the user (See Hyde Par [0189]-[0190] which discloses an individual from the US traveling to Europe on a business trip requiring them to stay in Europe, based on the user’s inability to travel to the US, the system utilizes a kiosk near his hotel in Paris rather than one in the US, which could constitute “mobility information” under BRI);
the product comprises a consumer healthcare product selected from a plurality of available consumer healthcare products using a diagnostics engine for determining one or more medical symptoms of the user (See Hyde Par [0018] & [0060] which discloses interaction with the user to determine symptoms of the subject; See Hyde Par [0165]-[0166] which discloses one or more interaction devices; See Hyde Par [0018] which discloses assisting in the assessment, i.e. diagnosis, of a subject, and assigned a health status indicator which indicates if medical services or products may be delivered, i.e. fulfilled to the user), wherein
the diagnostics engine comprises one or more of the server (See Hyde Par [0148] which discloses the use of a server as a computing device or remote computer to perform the methods described throughout Hyde); and
the user device of the user (See Hyde Par [0128] which discloses providing input related to a subject seeking a medical product or service by way of mobile phone, compute tablet, computer laptop, or other computing device).
While Hyde generally discloses fulfillment/delivery of a consumer healthcare product for a user, Hyde does not explicitly disclose the use of a drone configured to deliver the product to the user.
at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a drone which delivers the product to the user, wherein
the server is further configured to select the drone to deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user.
However, Potts discloses at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a drone which delivers the product to the user (See Potts Par [0037]-[0038] which discloses one or more courier or delivery services, such as of a prescription delivery service, via drone delivery) and the server is further configured to select the drone to deliver the product to the user (See Potts Par [0019] which discloses delivery of the prescription medication to the patient may be coordinated by the prescription delivery service server; See Potts Par [0037]-[0038] which discloses one or more automatically coordinated courier or delivery services, i.e. via said prescription delivery service server, such as of a prescription delivery service via drone delivery)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Hyde which already discloses air conveyance, i.e. delivery, of the one or more products in the form of airplane, rocket, helicopter, to further include drone delivery in particular, because this allows for automated delivery services of prescription medication (See Potts Par [0037]).
While Hyde and Potts generally disclose the use of a drone to arrange and deliver medicine to a user, and consideration of mobility/terrain information for prescription fulfillment purposes, Hyde and Potts are relatively silent on determining to use a drone when mobility information is determined as difficult or not possible as given by:
deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user.
However, Saric discloses delivering the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user (See Saric Par [0006] & [0008] which discloses it being desirable to perform prescription delivery for patients that are immobile or lack means of transportation, and specifically mentions that a sick or immobile patient may be unable or unwilling to leave their home to physically visit a pharmacy to pick up medications/prescriptions; See Saric Par [0015] which discloses the system/server determining whether one or more prescriptions are eligible to be delivered to a patient based on varying factors). The disclosure of Saric is directly applicable to the discloses of Hyde and Potts, because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities such as both being directed towards automated user product fulfillment, e.g. medication/prescription.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Hyde and Potts which generally discloses the use of a drone to arrange and deliver a product to a user based on varying factors, to further include a system/server determining to deliver a medication to a patient when the factor is mobility information of the patient, as disclosed by Saric, because a sick or immobile patient may be unable or unwilling to leave their home to physically visit a pharmacy to pick up medications/prescriptions, and therefore allows for prescription fulfillment for those patients (See Saric Par [0006], [0008], & [0015]).
Claim 25 –
Regarding Claim 25, Hyde discloses a non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions which when run on one or more processors, the executable instructions to perform a method (See Hyde Par [0093], [0096], [0142]-[0143] which all disclose the use of computer-readable media, i.e. program, that contain computer-readable instructions for performance of the methods described throughout Hyde) comprising:
receiving, at a server, information from a user device of a user (See Hyde Par [0148] which discloses the use of a server as a computing device or remote computer to perform the methods described throughout Hyde hereinafter; See Hyde Par [0128] which discloses providing input related to a subject seeking a medical product or service by way of mobile phone, compute tablet, computer laptop, or other computing device);
using, at the server, the received information to process a request for a product to be made available to the user (See Hyde Par [0128] which discloses providing input related to a subject seeking a medical product or service by way of mobile phone, compute tablet, computer laptop, or other computing device; See Hyde Par [0020] & [0023] which discloses receiving a request for a particular medical service or product by the subject or a provider on behalf of the subject);
determining, at the server, at least one of a plurality of devices to make the product available to the user (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service); and
providing, at the server, an indication to the user of the selection of the at least one of the plurality of devices (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service);
determining, at the server, the at least one of the plurality of devices to make the product available to the user based at least in part on location information (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service), wherein
the location information comprises location information of the user (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service) and location information of the plurality of devices (See Hyde Par [0017], [0153] & claim 67 which discloses utilizing location information of the user and associated kiosks in a geographical space to determine which kiosk is convenient for the user to interact with for receiving prescription medication; See Hyde Par [0042] which discloses providing a map or directions for availability of the nearest kiosk that does have a particular product or service), and
selecting, at the server, at least one of the plurality of devices based on information of an ability of the user to travel to at least one of the plurality of devices (See Hyde Par [0189]-[0190] which discloses an individual from the US traveling to Europe on a business trip requiring them to stay in Europe, based on the user’s inability to travel to the US, the system utilizes a kiosk near his hotel in Paris rather than one in the US), wherein
the information of an ability to travel is based upon mobility information of the user (see Hyde Par [0189]-[0190] which discloses an individual from the US traveling to Europe on a business trip requiring them to stay in Europe, based on the user’s inability to travel to the US, the system utilizes a kiosk near his hotel in Paris rather than one in the US, which could constitute “mobility information” under BRI);
the product comprises a consumer healthcare product selected from a plurality of available consumer healthcare products using a diagnostics engine for determining one or more medical symptoms of the user (See Hyde Par [0018] & [0060] which discloses interaction with the user to determine symptoms of the subject; See Hyde Par [0165]-[0166] which discloses one or more interaction devices; See Hyde Par [0018] which discloses assisting in the assessment, i.e. diagnosis, of a subject, and assigned a health status indicator which indicates if medical services or products may be delivered, i.e. fulfilled to the user), wherein
the diagnostics engine comprises one or more of the server (See Hyde Par [0148] which discloses the use of a server as a computing device or remote computer to perform the methods described throughout Hyde); and
the user device of the user (See Hyde Par [0128] which discloses providing input related to a subject seeking a medical product or service by way of mobile phone, compute tablet, computer laptop, or other computing device).
While Hyde generally discloses fulfillment/delivery of a consumer healthcare product for a user, Hyde does not explicitly disclose the use of a drone configured to deliver the product to the user.
at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a drone which delivers the product to the user, wherein
the server is further configured to select the drone to deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user.
However, Potts discloses at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a drone which delivers the product to the user (See Potts Par [0037]-[0038] which discloses one or more courier or delivery services, such as of a prescription delivery service, via drone delivery) and the server is further configured to select the drone to deliver the product to the user (See Potts Par [0019] which discloses delivery of the prescription medication to the patient may be coordinated by the prescription delivery service server; See Potts Par [0037]-[0038] which discloses one or more automatically coordinated courier or delivery services, i.e. via said prescription delivery service server, such as of a prescription delivery service via drone delivery)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Hyde which already discloses air conveyance, i.e. delivery, of the one or more products in the form of airplane, rocket, helicopter, to further include drone delivery in particular, because this allows for automated delivery services of prescription medication (See Potts Par [0037]).
While Hyde and Potts generally disclose the use of a drone to arrange and deliver medicine to a user, and consideration of mobility/terrain information for prescription fulfillment purposes, Hyde and Potts are relatively silent on determining to use a drone when mobility information is determined as difficult or not possible as given by:
deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user.
However, Saric discloses delivering the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on the mobility information of the user (See Saric Par [0006] & [0008] which discloses it being desirable to perform prescription delivery for patients that are immobile or lack means of transportation, and specifically mentions that a sick or immobile patient may be unable or unwilling to leave their home to physically visit a pharmacy to pick up medications/prescriptions; See Saric Par [0015] which discloses the system/server determining whether one or more prescriptions are eligible to be delivered to a patient based on varying factors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Hyde and Potts which generally discloses the use of a drone to arrange and deliver a product to a user based on varying factors, to further include a system/server determining to deliver a medication to a patient when the factor is mobility information of the patient, as disclosed by Saric, because a sick or immobile patient may be unable or unwilling to leave their home to physically visit a pharmacy to pick up medications/prescriptions, and therefore allows for prescription fulfillment for those patients (See Saric Par [0006] & [0008].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25 Applicant argues on p. 10 of Arguments/Remarks that amended, independent claims 1, 24, & 25 constitute a practical application by now reciting “…wherein at least the plurality of devices comprises a drone which delivers the product to the user”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Examiner contends that the steps recited in the independent claims still constitute mental processes, and do not amount to a practical application. That is, a pharmacist or doctor can make determination and processing steps regarding whether to refill a prescription medication, and where to refill said prescription medication based on querying a user and convenience in light of the user’s answer to the queries. Additionally, determinations and/or selecting a drone delivery for a medication or prescription could constitute a human making a decision to deliver medications by drone. Furthermore, the independent claims in their current form do not recite the actual/physical delivery or fulfillment of the product by the drone, under broadest reasonable interpretation (i.e. the system makes a selection for a drone “which delivers” the product and is thereby “selected to deliver the product to the user”, but the claims do not recite the drone actually making or fulfilling said delivery such as a limitation reciting “delivering” the product to the user. That is, “wherein at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a drone which delivers the product to the user” is merely electing the type of device/drone, i.e. “which delivers” is merely a descriptor of the drone, not a physical action that actively takes place or is being actuated by the system). That is, the actual delivery of the product by the drone is not positively recited, and instead merely amounts to selection of a drone that is configured for delivery is being selected to deliver the product, but whether the actual delivery of the product takes place is unknown. As such, independent claims 1, 24, & 25 and claims dependent therefrom are determined to still recite an abstract idea, i.e. a mental process, and remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. As such, claims 1, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25 Applicant argues on p. 10-18 of Arguments/Remarks that Hyde, Potts, and Gordon do not disclose “wherein at least one of the plurality of devices comprises a drone arranged to deliver the product to the user, wherein the server is further configured to select the drone to deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on at least mobility information of the user” as found in independent claims 1, 24, & 25. As such, Applicant argues that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 24, & 25 should be withdrawn. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1, 24, & 25 have been withdrawn in view of Hyde, Potts, and/or Gordon not reading on the newly amended limitation. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hyde, in view of newly cited portions of Potts, further in view of Saric that reads on said newly amended limitation in claims 1, 24, & 25. That is, Examiner agrees that Hyde does not read on the entirety of the newly amended limitation “wherein at least one of the plurality of devices comprise a drone arranged to deliver the product to the user, wherein the server is further configured to select the drone to deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based at least on the mobility information of the user and terrain information”. However, Examiner disagrees with Hyde not disclosing considerations of “mobility information” under BRI. Hyde Par [0189]-[0190] discloses an individual from the US traveling to Europe on a business trip requiring them to stay in Europe, based on the user’s inability to travel to the US. Applicant’s own arguments points to Specification [0171] which gives non-limiting examples of mobility information, including information of modes of transport that a user is able to take. That is, the system of Hyde considers that the user is abroad and has an inability to travel to the US which directly reflects Applicant’s own disclosure of “information of modes of transport that a user is able to take”. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that Hyde does not make said considerations, the newly relied-upon disclosure of Saric discloses at Saric Par [0006] & [0008] that it may be desirable to perform prescription delivery for patients that are immobile or lack means of transportation, and specifically mentions that a sick or immobile patient may be unable or unwilling to leave their home to physically visit a pharmacy to pick up medications/prescriptions and further discloses at Saric Par [0015] that the system/server itself determines whether one or more prescriptions are eligible to be delivered to a patient based on varying patient factors, such as those in Saric Par [0006] & [0008], i.e. “immobility or lacking means of transportation” which directly matches Applicant’s nonlimiting example of “information of modes of transport that a user is able to take”. Lastly, while Potts is not explicit on considerations of mobility information when determining whether to use a drone for prescription delivery, Potts Par [0019] discloses delivery of the prescription medication to the patient may be coordinated by the prescription delivery service server and a server, such as in Potts Par [0037]-[0038], automatically coordinating courier or delivery services, i.e. via said prescription delivery service server, such as of a prescription delivery service via drone delivery. Therefore, by Potts disclosing automatically coordinating courier or delivery services based on varying factors and Saric disclosing a server automatically determining prescription delivery is favorable for a patient based on patient mobility information, the combination of Hyde, Potts, and Saric effectively reads on “a drone arranged to deliver the product to the user, wherein the server is further configured to select the drone to deliver the product to the user when travel of the user to another of the plurality of devices is determined as difficult or not possible, based on at least mobility information of the user”. Therefore claims 1, 24, & 25 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hyde, in view of Potts, further in view of Saric. As such, claims 1, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25, Applicant argues on p. 18 of Arguments/Remarks that dependent claims 8-12, 16-18, & 20 which recite further distinguishing features from their independent claim 1, are also patentable by virtue of dependency. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. As discussed above, independent claims 1, 24, & 25 remain rejected under a new ground of rejection made under 35 U.S.C 103 over Hyde, in view of Potts, further in view of Saric. Similarly, dependent claims 8-12, 16-18, & 20 also remain rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 over Hyde, in view of Potts, further in view of Saric. As such, claims 1, 8-12, 16-18, 20, & 24-25 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Clise et al. (U.S. Patent 11,790,313) discloses a system for item delivery using multiple unmanned aerial vehicles, including prescription drugs either to a remote patient location or a remote healthcare facility/vending unit;
Dupray et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0069214) discloses the use of UAV delivery of medicines for varying telemedicine applications;
Salem et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0242984) discloses one or more drones deployable to a room or nurse’s station to collect samples, delivery pharmaceutical agents, etc., and maintain samples or medications therein.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 HUNTER J RASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684