DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 12/29/2025.
Claims 1 have been amended.
Claims 7 have been cancelled.
Claim 1-6 and 8-22 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §103. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6 and 8-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barajas et al. (US 2016/0132660), in view of Bossi et al. (US 2008/0059228), further in view of Wurm (US 2012/0130534).
CLAIM 1
As per claim 1, Barajas et al. disclose:
a method (Barajas et al., [0001] methods) of managing, reminding, and dispensing medication from a controlled- access container, the method comprising the steps of:
(A) providing at least one computerized medication container, wherein the computerized medication container is a customizable container structure configured to store various medications, and wherein the computerized medication container includes at least one processor, at least two restricted access compartments, at least one monitoring camera, at least one mechanical switch, at least one locking mechanism, and an illumination mechanism, and wherein the at least two restricted access compartments, the monitoring camera, the mechanical switch, the locking mechanism, and the illumination mechanism are electronically connected to the processor, and wherein the locking mechanism is operable between a locked configuration that prevents movement of the computerized medication container to a physically-opened configuration and an unlocked configuration that allows movement of the computerized medication container to the physically-opened configuration, and wherein the locking mechanism is an electronic lock operable via at least one central computing system and one or more key fobs, each key fob being associated with an individual user, and wherein the illumination mechanism is configured to ambiently illuminate surroundings of the computerized medication container (Barajas et al., Figure 3A 302, [0081] a bay sensor corresponding to the bay in which the medication is located may illuminate…, [0011] processor, [0012] camera, [0079] then the processor may perform an action such as unlocking the storage device 132, [0194] bays, [0198] lock 322, [0202] The light 302 may be configured to illuminate, [0205], [0216] The alert 620 coincides with the alert 330 displayed on the storage device display 192 and an illumination of the light 302 of the Sunday bay 318A…, [0238])
(D) activating the illumination mechanism (Barajas et al., Figure 3A 302, [0081] a bay sensor corresponding to the bay in which the medication is located may illuminate…, , [0011] processor, [0202] The light 302 may be configured to illuminate, [0205], [0238]) .
Barajas et al. fail to expressly disclose:
(B) providing at least one user account and at least one container event log managed by the at least one central computing system, wherein the user account is associated with the computerized medication container and a corresponding user personal computing (PC) device, and wherein the container event log is associated with the computerized medication container
(D) and recording a container-interaction event with the monitoring camera, if the mechanical switch is actuated by moving the computerized medication container to the physically-opened configuration
(E) relaying the container-interaction event from the monitoring camera, through the processor, and to the at least one central computing system, if the container-interaction event is recorded by the monitoring camera
(F) chronologically appending the container-interaction event into the container event log with the at least one central computing system
(G) generating a container-interaction alert based on the container-interaction event with the at least one central computing system
(H) relaying the container-interaction alert from the at least one central computing system to the corresponding user PC device
(I) outputting the container-interaction alert with the corresponding user PC device; and sequentially executing steps (C) through (I).
However, Bossi et al. teach:
(B) providing at least one user account and at least one container event log managed by the at least one central computing system, wherein the user account is associated with the computerized medication container and a corresponding user personal computing (PC) device, and wherein the container event log is associated with the computerized medication container (Bossi et al., [0271] Event monitoring services 670…operates to detect the occurrence of certain events requiring the transmission of reminders, notifications or action alerts to various users of the system, [0276] Table 2 user accounts)
(D) and recording a container-interaction event with the monitoring camera, if the mechanical switch is actuated by moving the computerized medication container to the physically-opened configuration (Bossi et al., [0115] An electronic imaging device (e.g. a camera) may also be incorporated to provide visual feedback that the desired medication is suitably discharged from the medication carrier 26.);
(E) relaying the container-interaction event from the monitoring camera, through the processor, and to the at least one central computing system, if the container-interaction event is recorded by the monitoring camera (Bossi et al., [0115] An electronic imaging device (e.g. a camera) may also be incorporated to provide visual feedback that the desired medication is suitably discharged from the medication carrier 26.)
(F) chronologically appending the container-interaction event into the container event log with the at least one central computing system (Bossi et al., [0271] Event monitoring services 670…operates to detect the occurrence of certain events requiring the transmission of reminders, notifications or action alerts to various users of the system)
(G) generating a container-interaction alert based on the container-interaction event with the at least one central computing system (Bossi et al., [0271] Event monitoring services 670…operates to detect the occurrence of certain events requiring the transmission of reminders, notifications or action alerts to various users of the system)
(H) relaying the container-interaction alert from the at least one central computing system to the corresponding user PC device (Bossi et al., [0271] Event monitoring services 670…operates to detect the occurrence of certain events requiring the transmission of reminders, notifications or action alerts to various users of the system); and
(I) outputting the container-interaction alert with the corresponding user PC device; and sequentially executing steps (C) through (I) (Bossi et al., [0271] Event monitoring services 670…operates to detect the occurrence of certain events requiring the transmission of reminders, notifications or action alerts to various users of the system).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to include “(B) providing at least one user account and at least one container event log managed by the at least one central computing system, wherein the user account is associated with the computerized medication container and a corresponding user personal computing (PC) device, and wherein the container event log is associated with the computerized medication container,” etc. as taught by Bossi et al. within the method as taught by the Barajas et al. with the motivation of providing remote prescription dosage adjustment, accurate pharmaceutical inventory and secure data communications (Bossi et al., [0007]-[0009]).
Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. fail to expressly teach:
and wherein the locking mechanism is operable between a locked configuration that prevents movement of the computerized medication container to a physically-opened configuration and an unlocked configuration that allows movement of the computerized medication container to the physically-opened configuration, and wherein the locking mechanism is an electronic lock operable via at least one central computing system and one or more key fobs, each key fob being associated with an individual user
(C) providing at least two access rules managed by the at least one central computing system, wherein a first access rule comprises dispensing a first medication to an authorized user from to a first restricted access compartment and denying the authorized user access to a second restricted access compartment at a first time, and wherein a second access rule comprises checking if the user has taken the first medication, wherein confirmation results in dispensing a second medication from a second restricted access compartment at a second time, and wherein allowing access comprises unlocking a restricted access compartment and denying access comprises maintaining the lock on a restricted access compartment.
However, Wurm teaches:
and wherein the locking mechanism is operable between a locked configuration that prevents movement of the computerized medication container to a physically-opened configuration and an unlocked configuration that allows movement of the computerized medication container to the physically-opened configuration, and wherein the locking mechanism is an electronic lock operable via at least one central computing system and one or more key fobs, each key fob being associated with an individual user (Wurm, [0029] electronic locking mechanism, [0036] key fob, [0048] step 510 where a user can be assigned a...physical device such as a key fob...having a registration unique to that particular user.)
(C) providing at least two access rules managed by the at least one central computing system, wherein a first access rule comprises dispensing a first medication to an authorized user from to a first restricted access compartment and denying the authorized user access to a second restricted access compartment at a first time, and wherein a second access rule comprises checking if the user has taken the first medication, wherein confirmation results in dispensing a second medication from a second restricted access compartment at a second time, and wherein allowing access comprises unlocking a restricted access compartment and denying access comprises maintaining the lock on a restricted access compartment (Wurm, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have found it obvious to include “and wherein the locking mechanism is operable between a locked configuration that prevents movement of the computerized medication container to a physically-opened configuration and an unlocked configuration that allows movement of the computerized medication container to the physically-opened configuration, and wherein the locking mechanism is an electronic lock operable via at least one central computing system and one or more key fobs, each key fob being associated with an individual user,” etc. as taught by Wurm with the method as taught by Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. with the motivation of providing secure access to medication cabinet contents, automated counting of medication cabinet contents, and inventory management (Wurm, [0005]).
CLAIM 2
As per claim 2, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: prompting the user account to view the container-interaction event with the corresponding user PC device after step (I); relaying the container-interaction event from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device, if the container-interaction event is selected to be viewed by the user account; and outputting the container-interaction event with the corresponding user PC device (Bossi et al., [0271] Event monitoring services 670…operates to detect the occurrence of certain events requiring the transmission of reminders, notifications or action alerts to various users of the system).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 3
As per claim 3, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of. providing a plurality of medication reminders for the user account managed by the central computing system; tracking a current date-and-time with the central computing system; comparing the current date-and-time to each medication reminder with the central computing system in order to identify at least one matching reminder from the plurality of medication reminders, wherein the matching reminder is within a reminder window of the current date-and-time; comparing the current date-and-time to the client event log with the central computing system in order to identify a matching log from the client event log, wherein the matching log is within the reminder window of the current date- and-time; generating a missed-medication alert with the central computing system, if the matching reminder is identified from the plurality of medication reminders, and if the matching log is not identified from the client event log (Bossi et al., Figure 2 Missed Dose Alert, Figure 22 Fulfillment, Adjustment and Compliance Tracking System (FACT), [0064] Fulfillment, Adjustment and Compliance Tracking System (FACT), [0271] Event monitoring services 670…operates to detect the occurrence of certain events requiring the transmission of reminders, notifications or action alerts to various users of the system) relaying the missed-medication alert from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device; and outputting the missed-medication alert with the corresponding user PC device (Barajas et al., Figure 6B 628 Missed Dose Action).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 4
As per claim 4, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: logging a lock-released event with the processor, if the mechanical switch is actuated by moving the computerized medication container to the physically- opened configuration, and if the locking mechanism is set to an unlocked configuration; relaying the lock-released event from the processor to the central computing system, if the lock-released event is logged by the processor; chronologically appending the lock-release event into the container event log with the central computing system; generating a lock-released alert based on the lock-release event with the central computing system; relaying the lock-released alert from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device; and outputting the lock-released alert with the corresponding user PC device (Barajas et al., [0011] processor, [0012] camera, [0079] then the processor may perform an action such as unlocking the storage device 132, [0194] bays, [0198] lock 322, [0199]-[0200], [0242]).
CLAIM 5
As per claim 5, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: comprising the steps of: logging a lock-broken event with the processor, if the mechanical switch is actuated by moving the computerized medication container to the physically-opened configuration, and if the locking mechanism is set to the locked configuration; relaying the lock-broken event from the processor to the central computing system, if the lock-broken event is logged by the processor; chronologically appending the lock-broken event into the container event log with the central computing system; generating a lock-broken alert based on the lock-broken event with the central computing system; relaying the lock-broken alert from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device; and outputting the lock-broken alert with the corresponding user PC device (Bossi et al., [0285] event monitoring services 670, medication delivery unit malfunctions).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 6
As per claim 6, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: providing the computerized medication container with a motion sensor, wherein the motion sensor is electronically connected to the processor; logging a close-proximity event with the processor, if a physical object is detected near the computerized medication container by the motion sensor; relaying the close-proximity event from the processor to the central computing system, if the close-proximity event is logged by the processor; chronologically appending the close-proximity event into the container event log with the central computing system; generating a close-proximity alert based on the close-proximity event with the central computing system; relaying the close-proximity alert from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device; and outputting the close-proximity alert with the corresponding user PC device (Bossi et al., [0115] The scanner 92 detects removal of a unit dose package 27 from a stall 28 of the medication carrier 26, tough interruption of a light beam…, An electronic imaging device (e.g. a camera) may also be incorporated to provide visual feedback that the desired medication is suitably discharged from the medication carrier 26.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 8
As per claim 8, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: providing the computerized medication container with a visual recording indicator, wherein the visual recording indicator is electronically connected to the processor; activating the visual recording indicator during step (D); and deactivating the visual recording indicator after step (D) (Bossi et al., [0115] An electronic imaging device (e.g. a camera) may also be incorporated to provide visual feedback that the desired medication is suitably discharged from the medication carrier 26., [0244] video camera).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 9
As per claim 9, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: providing the computerized medication container with an output device, wherein the output device is electronically connected to the processor; prompting the user account to enter at least one user alert with the corresponding user PC device; relaying the user alert from the corresponding user PC device, through the central computing system, and to the processor, if the user alert is entered by the user account; and outputting the user alert with the output device, if the mechanical switch is actuated by moving the computerized medication container to the physically-opened configuration (Bossi et al., [0271] Event monitoring services 670…operates to detect the occurrence of certain events requiring the transmission of reminders, notifications or action alerts to various users of the system).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 10
As per claim 10, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: providing the computerized medication container with an output device, wherein the output device is electronically connected to the processor; prompting the user account to enter at least one user instruction with the corresponding user PC device; relaying the user instruction from the corresponding user PC device, through the central computing system, and to the processor, if the user instruction is entered by the user account; and outputting the user instruction with the output device, if the mechanical switch is actuated by moving the computerized medication container to the physically- opened configuration (Barajas et al., Figure 6A, Figure 6B, [0079] then the processor may perform an action such as unlocking the storage device 132).
CLAIM 11
As per claim 11, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: providing the computerized medication container with a communication mechanism, wherein the communication mechanism is electronically connected to the processor; generating an activation alert with the processor, if the mechanical switch is actuated by moving the computerized medication container to the physically- opened configuration; relaying the activation alert from the processor, through the central computing system, and to the corresponding user PC device, if the activation alert is generated by the processor; and outputting the activation alert with the corresponding user PC device (Barajas et al., Figure 6A, Figure 6B, [0079] then the processor may perform an action such as unlocking the storage device 132).
CLAIM 12
As per claim 12, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 11 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: receiving at least one user instruction through the corresponding user PC device; relaying the user instruction from the corresponding user PC device, through the central computing system, and to the processor; and outputting the user instruction with the communication mechanism (Barajas et al., Figure 6A, Figure 6B).
CLAIM 13
As per claim 13, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 11 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: receiving at least one response through the communication mechanism; relaying the response from the processor, through the central computing system, and to the corresponding user PC device; and outputting the response with the corresponding user PC device (Bossi et al., [0285] responses).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 14
As per claim 14, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: tracking at least one access condition for the first restricted access compartment with the processor; logging an unauthorized-access event with the processor, if the access rule is not satisfied by the access condition, and if the restricted access compartment is in a physically-opened configuration; relaying the unauthorized-access event from the processor to the central computing system, if the unauthorized-access event is logged by the processor; chronologically appending the unauthorized-access event into the container event log with the central computing system; generating an unauthorized-access alert based on the unauthorized-access event with the central computing system; relaying the unauthorized-access alert from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device; and outputting the unauthorized-access alert with the corresponding user PC device (Barajas et al., [0242] authorized user).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 15
As per claim 15, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 14 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: prompting the user account to enter at least one new access rule with the corresponding user PC device; relaying the new access rule from the corresponding user PC device, through the central computing system, and to the processor, if the new access rule is entered by the user account; and applying the new access rule to the restricted access compartment with the processor (Bossi et al., [0092] security access password, [0180] passwords or authentication mechanisms that provide the appropriate level of access).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 16
As per claim 16, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: providing a medication inventory managed by the central computing system, wherein the medication inventory is associated with the computerized medication container; prompting the user account to view the medication inventory with the corresponding user PC device; relaying the medication inventory from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device, if the medication inventory is selected to be viewed by the user account; and outputting the medication inventory with the corresponding user PC device (Bossi et al., Figure 56, [0067] inventory function).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 17
As per claim 17, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 16 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: image-processing the container-interaction event in order to identify at least one medication-addition event and/or at least one medication-reduction event with the central computing system after step (E); and appending the medication-addition event and/or the medication-reduction event into the medication inventory with the central computing system, if the medication-addition event is identified by the central computing system (Bossi et al., [0146] adjusted dosage delivery criteria, [0148] adjusted dosage).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 18
As per claim 18, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 16 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: tracking changes to the medication inventory with the central computing system; prompting the user account to generate a medication usage report with the corresponding PC device; compiling the changes to the medication inventory into the medication usage report with the central computing system, if the medication usage report is selected to be generated by the user account; relaying the medication usage report from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device; and outputting the medication usage report with the corresponding user PC device (Bossi et al., [0139] usage information, [0261] patient usage).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Bossi et al. with the method as taught by Barajas et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 19
As per claim 19, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 16 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: providing the medication inventory with a plurality of pill counts, wherein a minimum threshold is stored by the central computing system; generating a refill alert for at least one specific pill count with the central computing system, if the specific pill count is equal to or less than the minimum threshold, wherein the specific pill count is from the plurality of pill counts; relaying the refill alert for the specific pill count from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device; and outputting the refill alert for the specific pill count with the corresponding user PC device (Barajas et al., [0068] the order module 138 may receive data indicating that a refill of a prescription of the patient 102 is due).
CLAIM 20
As per claim 20, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: tracking user conformance metrics based on the container event log with the central computing system; prompting the user account to generate a user conformance report with the corresponding PC device; summarizing the user conformance metrics into the user conformance report with the central computing system, if the user conformance report is selected to be generated by the user account; relaying the user conformance report from the central computing system to the corresponding user PC device; and outputting the user conformance report with the corresponding user PC device (Barajas et al., Figure 9 918 Display Calculated Adherence Data, Figure 10A 1006, [0010] patient adherence module).
CLAIM 21
As per claim 21, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: detecting with the processor when the locking mechanism moves from the locked configuration to the unlocked configuration or vice versa (Wurm, Figure 6).
CLAIM 22
As per claim 22, Barajas et al. and Bossi et al. and Wurm
teach the method of claim 21 and further disclose the limitations of:
comprising the steps of: detecting with the processor which key fob has been used to move the locking mechanism from the locked configuration to the unlocked configuration or vice versa (Wurm, Figure 5, Figure 6, [0029] electronic locking mechanism, [0036] key fob, [0048] step 510 where a user can be assigned a...physical device such as a key fob...having a registration unique to that particular user.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/29/2025 with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 12/29/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/29/2025 with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-22 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Barajas et al., Bossi et al. and Wurm do not render obvious the present invention because Barajas et al., Bossi et al. and Wurm do not disclose “dispensing a first medication to an authorized user from a first restricted access compartment and denying the authorized user access to a second restricted access compartment...,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), it is respectfully submitted that the Examiner has applied/recited new passages and citations to amended claims 1 at the present time. The Examiner notes that the amended limitations were not in the previously pending claims. As such, Applicant’s remarks with regard to the application of Barajas et al., Bossi et al. and Wurm to the amended limitations are addressed above in the Office Action.
Applicant’s Amendments – Dispensing
Applicant amended claims recite “dispensing a first medication to an authorized user from a first restricted access compartment and denying the authorized user access to a second restricted access compartment.” The Examiner interprets Applicant’s “dispensing” to consist of locking and/or unlocking the compartments recited in Applicant’s Specification. However, Applicant’s claims do recite “wherein allowing access comprises unlocking a restricted access compartment and denying access comprises maintaining the lock on a restricted access compartment.” So the Examine inquires if the Applicant is open to amendments that incorporate “locking/unlocking” into Applicant’s claimed “dispensing” in order to advance prosecution. The Examiner is willing to conduct an Interview with Applicant and the Examiner’s SPE to see if allowable amendments can be agreed upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683