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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 11 Applicant argues:
“A core technical merit of the present disclosure, as now recited in amended Claims 1 and 11, is the implementation of a ‘confusion matrix module.’ This module does not merely light up a location; it intelligently identifies ‘confusing prescription items’ (items that look alike or are easily mistaken for one another). Crucially, the system is arranged to provide visual indications for these specific confusing items in a ‘staggered manner.’ By deliberately staggering the indication-lighting up one confusing item only after the other has been successfully processed the system physically prevents the dispenser from inadvertently picking the wrong item due to visual similarity. This active, sequential guidance based on similar data significantly enhances safety and accuracy in the dispensing workflow.”
However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “lighting up one confusing item only after the other has been successfully processed”) are not recited in the rejected independent claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 11 Applicant argues:
“The Examiner has cited Samples et al. as the sole basis for the novelty rejection. Briefly, Samples et al. discloses a system for remote verification of pharmacy prescription preparation. The primary function of Samples et al. is to allow a remote pharmacist to view images of a medication that has already been filled by a local technician to verify its accuracy. Once a prescription is verified remotely, the local system may unlock a cabinet or light an LED to indicate that the finished prescription is ready for release to a patient (See Samples et al., Abstract and Paragraph [0008]). The indicators in Samples et al. are used to display status (e.g., green for verified, red for problem) or to locate a finished patient order.
Applicant respectfully submits that Samples et al. fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the specific limitations now recited in amended Claims 1 and 11, specifically a confusion matrix module and the generation of visual indications for confusing items in a staggered manner…
In addition, Samples et al. lacks a ‘staggered manner’ of indicating confusing items. The Examiner cites Paragraphs [0060] and [0110] and Figure 8 of Samples et al. to teach the visual indication. However, Samples et al. merely utilizes LEDs to indicate the status of a prescription container. For example, a green LED indicates a prescription is verified and ready for pickup, while a red LED indicates a problem.”
However, a green status and a red status provide visual indications which can be construed as staggered. A green status can provide medication now and a red status prevents medication now but enables providing medication later (once it turns green), i.e. in a staggered manner. Providing a green status at different times encompasses a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “staggered”. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 11 Applicant argues:
“The Office Action cites Paragraph [0078] of Samples et al. to suggest the disclosure of error handling. However, Paragraph [0078] of Samples et al. merely lists potential reasons why a verification might fail, such as ‘incorrect medication entry’ or ‘incorrect medication strength.’ This is a passive list of error codes used during a post-fill review. Samples et al. does not disclose a module, in particular a ‘Confusion Matrix Module’ that pre-emptively identifies pairs or groups of items within the inventory that are visually similar (‘confusing prescription items’) as defined in the present application.”
However, the “incorrect medication entry” disclosed in paragraph [0078] provides direct evidence of “confusion prescription items” as claimed. Furthermore, the flashing red light status disclosed in paragraph [0060] of the prior art is functional to indicate that “corrected prescription fill information is needed”, i.e. confusion. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 11 Applicant argues:
“There is no disclosure in Samples et al. of a system that, i) identifies two distinct ingredients as being ‘confusing’ (e.g., Item A and Item B look alike); and ii) deliberately lights them up in a staggered manner (i.e., ensuring the indicator for Item B does not light up until Item A is completed) to prevent cross-contamination or picking errors.
In Samples et al., the ‘queue’ described (Paragraph [0108]) is based on urgency or workflow efficiency, not on the visual similarity of the products to prevent confusion. The Present Application, in contrast, provides a specific technical solution to the problem of human error caused by visual similarity. The ‘staggered manner’ forces a sequential interaction that Samples et al. does not contemplate.
Because Samples et al. does not disclose a confusion matrix module that controls indicators in a staggered manner to separate confusing items, it does not anticipate the claimed invention. As such, amended independent Claims 1 and 11, and their dependent claims, are novel and patentable over the cited art.”
However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a system that, i) identifies two distinct ingredients as being ‘confusing’ (e.g., Item A and Item B look alike); and ii) deliberately lights them up in a staggered manner (i.e., ensuring the indicator for Item B does not light up until Item A is completed) to prevent cross-contamination or picking errors”) are not recited in the rejected independent claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not convincing.
For the foregoing reasons claims 1-9 and 11-19 stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Samples et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0313031).
Regarding claim 1, Samples et al. disclose a medicine dispensing system comprising:
a dispenser control module (112) arranged to receive a medication prescription including at least one prescription item (see Figure 2);
a cabinet control module (112) arranged to locate a position (see “a compartment of a cabinet…associated with the verified prescription” in paragraph [0008]) of each of the at least one prescription item stored in one of a plurality of predetermined compartments (126) of a cabinet (116);
an indicator module (see “LED indicator” in paragraph [0060]) arranged to provide a visual indication to a dispenser (see “a lock” in paragraph [0060]) indicating a physical location of each of the at least one prescription item (see paragraph [0060]); and
a confusion matrix module arranged to generate the visual indication to the dispenser indicating physical locations of a plurality of confusing prescription items in a staggered manner (see paragraphs [0078], [0060], [0110], and Figure 8).
Regarding claim 2, Samples et al. disclose the medicine dispensing system of claim 1, further comprising an electronic weight arranged to weigh the prescription item according to the medication prescription (see paragraphs [0058] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Samples et al. disclose the medicine dispensing system of claim 2, further comprising an optical imager (118) arranged to identify the prescription item being weighed (see paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Samples et al. disclose the medicine dispensing system of claim 2, further comprising a dispenser input module arranged to receive a manual confirmation indicating that the prescription item has been weighed and dispensed (see paragraphs [0048] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Samples et al. disclose the medicine dispensing system of claim 4, where the dispenser control module is further arranged to update the visual indication provided to the dispenser indicating the physical locations of prescription items which have not been weighed and dispensed (see paragraphs [0057], [0110], [0060] and Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 6, Samples et al. disclose the medicine dispensing system of claim 5, wherein the indicator module comprises a plurality of indicators (see “green LED” and “red LED” in paragraph [0060]) each provided on a compartment of the cabinet, and wherein the physical locations of prescription items which have not been weighed and dispensed are indicated by lighting up an indicator provided on the respective compartment of the cabinet (see paragraphs [0057], [0110], [0060] and Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 7, Samples et al. disclose the medicine dispensing system of claim 1, further comprising a display module arranged to notify the dispenser an error or a potential error associated with the at least one prescription item of the medication prescription (see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 8, Samples et al. disclose the medicine dispensing system of claim 7, wherein the error includes the at least one prescription item being overweighed or incorrectly dispensed (see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 9, Samples et al. disclose the medicine dispensing system of claim 7, wherein the potential error includes a wrong prescription item being selected due to confusion (see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, Samples et al. disclose a method for facilitating medicine dispensing, comprising the step of:
receiving a medication prescription including at least one prescription item (see Figure 2);
locating a position (see “a compartment of a cabinet…associated with the verified prescription” in paragraph [0008]) of each of the at least one prescription item stored in one of a plurality of predetermined compartments (126) of a cabinet (116);
providing a visual indication to a dispenser (see “a lock” in paragraph [0060]) indicating a physical location of each of the at least one prescription item (see paragraph [0060]); and
providing the visual indication to the dispenser indicating physical locations of a plurality of confusing prescription items in a staggered manner (see paragraphs [0078], [0060], [0110], and Figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, Samples et al. disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising the step of weighing the prescription item according to the medication prescription (see paragraphs [0058] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 13, Samples et al. disclose the method of claim 12, further comprising the step of identifying, by an optical imager (118), the prescription item being weighed (see paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Samples et al. disclose the method of claim 12, further comprising the step of receiving a manual confirmation indicating that the prescription item has been weighed and dispensed (see paragraphs [0048] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 15, Samples et al. disclose the method of claim 14, further comprising the steps of updating the visual indication provided to the dispenser indicating the physical locations of prescription items which have not been weighed and dispensed (see paragraphs [0057], [0110], [0060] and Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 16, Samples et al. disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the physical locations of prescription items which have not been weighed and dispensed are indicated by lighting up an indicator provided on the respective compartment of the cabinet (see paragraphs [0057], [0110], [0060] and Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 17, Samples et al. disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising the step of notifying the dispenser an error or a potential error associated with the at least one prescription item of the medication prescription (see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 18, Samples et al. disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the error includes the at least one prescription item being overweighed or incorrectly dispensed (see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 19, Samples et al. disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the potential error includes a wrong prescription item being selected due to confusion (see paragraph [0078]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
5/28/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights