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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group A, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the basis that the claims do not represent “a materially different” method and system as set forth in MPEP 806.05(f). This traversal is not persuasive as the restriction was on the basis of lack of unity of invention (under PCT Rules 13.1 and 13.2) and Applicant has not advanced arguments relating to lack of unity of invention, i.e., how the different groups are linked by a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding these claims, the language “pharmacy as pharmacy affair management services” (claims 1, 7) appears in conflict with the specification and thus renders the scope of the claims indefinite. That is, the specification appears to define a pharmacy management element as a technology platform separate from the actual robot device, said technology platform separate from and configured to monitor the robot complex (see e.g., Spec., para. 129-134 teaching monitoring drug inventory via a supply chain platform and using cloud-server industry-wide shared database). Further, Applicant’s specification fails to clarify this issue as the specification only describes the robot devices as having elements configured to perform the physician and pharmacy services and does not describe elements that are part of the pharmacy robot device configured to provide pharmacy affair management services.
Claims 11-13 also render the scope of the claims indefinite as these claims define elements, such as a delivery device, collection bin, lifting device, and a crawler device, that appear to be defined as elements that are separate from the claimed “pharmacy robot device” that is defined as a plurality of single pharmacy robots.
Examiner requests clarification on what elements are actually part of the claimed pharmacy robot and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention and that is supported by the specification. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davey et al. (“Davey”)(US 2013/0197233).
Davey teaches a pharmacy robot device comprising
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a single pharmacy robot configured to provide pharmacy as physician services, pharmacy as pharmacist services, and pharmacy as pharmacy affair management services (fig. 1 showing single robot connected to physician, prescription and medication and online drug inventory; para. 37-48 teaching that pharmacy system links multiple pharmacies together via computer network, wherein each individual pharmacy includes a robot configured to package and deliver medications, an automated drug preparation area, and self-service patient terminals configured to allow patients to submit prescriptions and communicate with pharmacist; para. 56-63 teaching that system provides physician services by interacting with physician and retrieving prescription and customer information and provides pharmacy management services by checking online inventory of drugs and ordering interfacing with physician to inquire if different medication is acceptable or ordering the same specific drug), and
a pharmacy robot complex configured to provide pharmacy as physician services, pharmacy as pharmacist services, and pharmacy as pharmacy affair management services (Id. and para. 54-55 teaching use of multiple intelligent robots that can verify patient identity and dispense/deliver medications);
the pharmacy robot complex comprises a plurality of the single pharmacy robots (Id.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights