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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-39 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 11 recites “the volume of the media” which should read “a volume of the media” as it is a first introduction
Claim 3, Ln. 2 recites “a cartridge” which should read “the cartridge” following after claim 1
Claim 18, Ln. 1-2 recites “that amplifies the force of the motor connects the motor to the driver component” which should read “that amplifies the force of the motor and connects the motor to the driver component”
Claim 21, Ln. 1-2 recites “the position of the driver component” which should read “a position of the driver component” as it is a first introduction
Claim 25, Ln. 1-2 recites “a position of the driver component” which should read “the position of the driver component” following after claim 21
Claim 35, Ln. 2 recites “provide” which should read “provided”
Claim 37, Ln. 2 recites “Melatonin” and “Nicotine” which should not be capitalized
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3, 29, 32, 34 and 37 is/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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the device comprises a guide a guide feature” in Ln. 1 which deems the claim indefinite. It appears the limitation either is missing words or has inadvertently added extra words. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the device comprises a guide feature”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the media storage area is made of a flexible material” which deems the claim indefinite. The language “media storage area” is understood to imply an internal space or cavity. Note also this is consistent with the disclosure of the instant application (e.g. Fig. 2 #206 is only an “area” and not a structure). The limitation is thus indefinite as it attempts to claim a material form for a non-structural limitation. The claim should be amended to instead define whatever structure bounds the media storage area as made of a flexible material.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “the programmable memory” in Ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the claim will instead be read as dependent on claim 4, which provides the proper antecedent basis.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the user” in Ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “a user”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “the at least one constituent comprises” in Ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the media comprises,” following after claim 1.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a component that amplifies the force of the motor” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for the “component that amplifies” is best understood from the specification as at least: a series of gears (¶0078 of the PGPub copy of the instant application).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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) 1-3, 6, 9, 11-12, 27-28 and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Batista et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0172211).
Regarding claim 1, Batista discloses a system for dispensing media (Fig. 5; ¶¶0098-0101), comprising: a device (Fig. 5 #30; ¶0098) comprising: a driver component (Fig. 5 #14; ¶0098) having an end configured to act on a movable surface of a cartridge (¶0099 – drive shaft 14 causes movement at cartridge 40), a motor (Fig. 5 #12; ¶0098) configured to controllably position the driver component, at least one hardware processor (Fig. 1A #10; ¶¶0077-0078, 0089, 0101), and one or more software modules (¶¶0052-0053) that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, receive media dose information and control the motor based on the media dose information in order to dispense a dose of the media (¶0089 – particular or predetermined amount); a cartridge (Fig. 5 #40; ¶0098) having: a media storage area for storing the media (Fig. 5 internal to #40), at least one movable surface (Fig. 5 #16, 18, 26; ¶0099) that changes a volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component (¶0099), and an outlet (Fig. 5 right end of #40) through which the media is dispensed in order to change the volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component. The phrase “acts on” in the claim is understood under broadest reasonable interpretation to allow for either direct or indirect interaction between the driver component and the movable surface.
Regarding claim 2, Batista discloses the device is configured to receive the cartridge (¶0100).
Regarding claim 3, Batista discloses the device comprises a guide feature (Fig. 5 #14 or other internal structures of #30 which support #40) for aligning a cartridge.
Regarding claim 6, Batista discloses the motor has a shaft that rotates (¶0089).
Regarding claim 9, Batista discloses the media is a liquid (¶0098).
Regarding claim 11, Batista discloses the media contains a medication (¶0081).
Regarding claim 12, Batista discloses the media contains a drug and/or a supplement (¶0081).
Regarding claim 27, Batista discloses the movable surface that changes the volume of the media storage area is part of a plunger (Fig. 5 #16, 18, 26; ¶0099).
Regarding claim 28, Batista discloses the movable surface that changes the volume of the media storage area is integrally formed with the media storage area (Fig. 5 #16, 18, 26; ¶0099).
Regarding claim 37, Batista discloses the media comprises at least one of Melatonin, CBD, CBN, Nicotine (¶0081) or THC.
Regarding claim 38, Batista discloses the media is an ingested media (¶0081). Under broadest reasonable interpretation an aerosol which is absorbed in a user’s airways be may considered as having been ingested by the user. Further, at least a portion of an inhaled aerosol will be expected to travel into a user’s esophagus, where the aerosol can be ingested.
Regarding claim 39, Batista discloses the device comprises an opening through which the driver component can extend when acted upon by the motor (Fig. 5 opening through which #14 passes).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-17, 26, 28, 30-31, 33-36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horton et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0231667).
Regarding claim 1, Horton discloses a system for dispensing media (Figs. 1b & 6-7; ¶0204), comprising: a device (Figs. 1b & 6-7 except #20) comprising: a driver component (Fig. 1b #32; ¶0192) having an end configured to act on a movable surface of a cartridge (Fig. 1b; ¶0192 – collar 32 acts to depress container 20), a motor (Fig. 1b #50; ¶0192) configured to controllably position the driver component, at least one hardware processor (Fig. 6 #570, Fig. 7 #670; ¶¶0206-0211), and one or more software modules (¶0155) that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, receive media dose information and control the motor based on the media dose information in order to dispense a dose of the media (¶¶0022-0023 – metered volume); a cartridge (Fig. 1b #20; ¶0192) having: a media storage area for storing the media (Fig. 1b internal of #20), at least one movable surface (Fig. 1b outer surface of #20) that changes a volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component (¶0192 – operation of drive motor 50 causes a metered volume to be released from container 20 which results in less media volume remaining within container 20), and an outlet (Fig. 1b #24; ¶0190) through which the media is dispensed in order to change the volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component. It is noted that the embodiment of Fig. 1b has been cited above because of its use of a linear motor (¶0192). However, the embodiment of Fig. 1a and its rotating motor can also be read on the claim in a similar manner (¶0191).
Regarding claim 2, Horton discloses the device is configured to receive the cartridge (Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 3, Horton further suggests as obvious the device comprises a guide feature (Fig. 1b #40; ¶0191) for aligning a cartridge.
Regarding claim 6, Horton discloses the motor has a shaft that rotates (Fig. 1a; ¶0191).
Regarding claim 8, Horton discloses the motor is a linear motor (Fig. 1b; ¶0192).
Regarding claim 9, Horton discloses the media is a liquid (¶0063).
Regarding claim 10, Horton discloses the media is a powder (¶0014).
Regarding claim 11, Horton discloses the media contains a medication (¶0064).
Regarding claim 12, Horton discloses the media contains a drug and/or a supplement (¶0064).
Regarding claim 13, Horton discloses the device further comprises a user interface (¶¶0091, 0210) for displaying information associated with the media.
Regarding claim 14, Horton discloses the information associated with the media is an amount of media dispensed (¶0108).
Regarding claim 15, Horton discloses the user interface accepts touch inputs for controlling the device (¶0090).
Regarding claim 16, Horton discloses the device is in communication with a mobile device (¶0095).
Regarding claim 17, Horton discloses the device is in communication with a server (¶0143).
Regarding claim 26, Horton discloses the driver component is configured to retract after dispensing a dose of media (¶0192 – e.g. reciprocating).
Regarding claim 28, Horton discloses the movable surface that changes the volume of the media storage area is integrally formed with the media storage area (Fig. 1b – container 20 has an integral outer housing).
Regarding claim 30, Horton discloses an amount of media to be dispensed is communicated from a computer network to the device (¶0149).
Regarding claim 31, Horton discloses information associated with the amount of media dispensed is stored within a computer network (¶0149).
Regarding claim 33, Horton discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on user characteristics related to a user (¶0149 – a prescription is based on characteristics of a patient).
Regarding claim 34, Horton discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on a selection by a user (¶0149 – a prescription is based on a patient’s selection to visit a doctor).
Regarding claim 35, Horton discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on information received from or provide by a third party (¶0149 – a prescription is provided by a doctor).
Regarding claim 36, Horton discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, by determination of a data analysis program (¶0149 – a doctor will obviously analyze data to determine a prescription).
Regarding claim 38, Horton discloses the media is an ingested media (¶0027). Under broadest reasonable interpretation a vaporized material which is absorbed in a user’s airways be may considered as having been ingested by the user. Further, at least a portion of an inhaled vaporized material will be expected to travel into a user’s esophagus, where the material can be ingested.
Regarding claim 39, Horton discloses the device comprises an opening through which the driver component can extend when acted upon by the motor (Fig. 1b opening defined by interior of #40).
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-22, 25-28, 30-31 and 33-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilder et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0177958).
Regarding claim 1, Wilder discloses a system for dispensing media (Figs. 11-14; ¶¶0061-0062), comprising: a device (Figs. 11-14 except #706; ¶¶0051, 0062) comprising: a driver component (¶¶0051, 0062 – piston) having an end configured to act on a movable surface of a cartridge (¶¶0051, 0062 – piston acts on plunger of oil cartridge 706), a motor (Fig. 15 #1122; ¶0061) configured to controllably position the driver component, at least one hardware processor (Fig. 11 #1106; ¶0061), and instructions that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, receive media dose information and control the motor based on the media dose information in order to dispense a dose of the media (¶¶0056, 0058); a cartridge (Fig. 14 #706; ¶¶0051, 0062) having: a media storage area for storing the media (internal to #706; note area to the right of #810 in Fig. 8, ¶0053), at least one movable surface (¶¶0051, 0062 – plunger of oil cartridge 706; note relation to #810 in Fig. 8, ¶0053) that changes a volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component (¶¶0061-0062), and an outlet (where dispensing occurs from #706; note relation to #802 in Fig. 8, ¶0052) through which the media is dispensed in order to change the volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component.
Wilder fails to explicitly disclose the instructions in one or more software modules.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizing that the device of Wilder is designed to respond to user input to operate in either a Quick mode or an Advanced mode, with particular controls performed in each mode (¶¶0056, 0058), would have considered it prima facie obvious to have specified the controls for the different modes as embodied in software of the device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Wilder the instructions in one or more software modules based upon an obvious design choice expectation of one of ordinary skill in the programming arts of embodying alternate controls for different modes of operation in software.
Regarding claim 2, Wilder discloses the device is configured to receive the cartridge (¶¶0056, 0058 – installed).
Regarding claim 3, Wilder discloses the device comprises a guide feature (Fig. 7 right side column receiving parts or interconnection with other structures in Fig. 14) for aligning a cartridge.
Regarding claim 6, Wilder discloses the motor has a shaft that rotates (Fig. 14; ¶¶0051, 0062).
Regarding claim 7, Wilder discloses the device further comprises a drive screw (Fig. 14 #816; ¶0062) that connects the motor to the driver component.
Regarding claim 9, Wilder discloses the media is a liquid (¶¶0056, 0058).
Regarding claim 10, Wilder discloses the media is a powder (¶¶0057, 0059 – loose-leaf material will be expected to include some powder).
Regarding claim 11, Wilder discloses the media contains a medication (¶0027).
Regarding claim 12, Wilder discloses the media contains a drug and/or a supplement (¶0027).
Regarding claim 13, Wilder discloses the device further comprises a user interface (Fig. 7 #722; ¶0051) for displaying information associated with the media.
Regarding claim 14, Wilder discloses the information associated with the media is an amount of media dispensed (¶0058).
Regarding claim 15, Wilder discloses the user interface accepts touch inputs for controlling the device (¶¶0056, 0058).
Regarding claim 16, Wilder discloses the device is in communication with a mobile device (¶0059).
Regarding claim 17, Wilder further suggests as obvious the device is in communication with a server (¶0059 – communication via an app on a mobile device obviously implies communication with a server).
Regarding claim 18, Wilder discloses the device further comprises a component (Fig. 14 #1214; ¶0062) that amplifies the force of the motor and connects the motor to the driver component.
Regarding claim 19, Wilder discloses the component that amplifies the force of the motor is comprised of one or more gears (Fig. 14 #1214; ¶0062). The instant claim does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding claim 20, Wilder discloses the device further comprises a drive screw (Fig. 14 #816; ¶0062) that connects the component that amplifies the force of the motor to the driver component.
Regarding claim 21, Wilder discloses the device further comprises a sensor (Fig. 14 #1120; ¶0061) for determining a position of the driver component.
Regarding claim 22, Wilder discloses the sensor reads the position of a movable portion of the motor (Fig. 14 #1120; ¶0061).
Regarding claim 25, Wilder discloses the sensor is configured to read a position of the driver component (¶¶0061-0062).
Regarding claim 26, Wilder discloses the driver component is configured to retract after dispensing a dose of media (¶0062 – e.g. forwards and backwards).
Regarding claim 27, Wilder discloses the movable surface that changes the volume of the media storage area is part of a plunger (¶¶0061-0062; see also Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 28, Wilder discloses the movable surface that changes the volume of the media storage area is integrally formed with the media storage area (¶¶0061-0062; see also Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 30, Wilder further suggests as obvious an amount of media to be dispensed is communicated from a computer network to the device (¶0059 – communication via an app on a mobile device obviously implies communication with a computer network).
Regarding claim 31, Wilder fails to explicitly disclose information associated with the amount of media dispensed is stored within a computer network.
However, it is noted that the storing within a computer network is not meaningfully linked to the limitations of claim 1 and is thus particularly broad in scope. For example, research data relating to effects of the particular amount of media will obviously be stored in a computer network. Additionally, the programmer of the circuit board 1106 will obviously store information about the amount of media intended for dispensing on a computer network. The claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over Wilder.
Regarding claim 33, Wilder discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on user characteristics related to a user (¶¶0056, 0058). Under broadest reasonable interpretation a user’s selections may be considered a user characteristic.
Regarding claim 34, Wilder discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on a selection by a user (¶¶0056, 0058).
Regarding claim 35, Wilder discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on information received from or provide by a third party (¶0059 – from mobile device).
Regarding claim 36, Wilder discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, by determination of a data analysis program (¶0058 – calculating the doses in this paragraph requires a calculation program).
Regarding claim 37, Wilder discloses the media comprises at least one of Melatonin, CBD, CBN, Nicotine (¶0027) or THC.
Regarding claim 38, Wilder discloses the media is an ingested media (¶0027). Under broadest reasonable interpretation a vaporized material which is absorbed in a user’s airways be may considered as having been ingested by the user. Further, at least a portion of an inhaled vaporized material will be expected to travel into a user’s esophagus, where the material can be ingested.
Regarding claim 39, Wilder discloses the device comprises an opening through which the driver component can extend when acted upon by the motor (Fig. 14 on left end of #1114).
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-17, 21-22, 25, 27-28, 30-36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacker (U.S. Pub. 2018/0296778).
Regarding claim 1, Hacker discloses a system for dispensing media (Figs. 1-3; ¶0023), comprising: a device (Figs. 2-3 except #2; ¶¶0023-0024) comprising: a driver component (Figs. 2-3 #28; ¶0024) having an end configured to act on a movable surface of a cartridge (¶0024 – screw 28 acts on first end 25), a motor (Figs. 2-3 #30; ¶0024) configured to controllably position the driver component, at least one hardware processor (¶0032), and instructions that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, receive media dose information and control the motor based on the media dose information in order to dispense a dose of the media (¶0022); a cartridge (Figs. 2-3 #22; ¶0024) having: a media storage area for storing the media (Figs. 2-3 internal to #22), at least one movable surface (Figs. 2-3 #25; ¶0024) that changes a volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component (¶0024), and an outlet (Figs. 2-3 bottom of #22) through which the media is dispensed in order to change the volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component.
Hacker fails to explicitly disclose the instructions in one or more software modules.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizing that the device of Hacker is designed for various wireless communication options (¶0041) and includes a display interface to receive user input (¶0031) would have considered it prima facie obvious to have specified those controls as embodied in software of the device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Hacker the instructions in one or more software modules based upon an obvious design choice expectation of one of ordinary skill in the programming arts of embodying controls over device communication and display interface in software.
Regarding claim 2, Hacker discloses the device is configured to receive the cartridge (¶0024).
Regarding claim 3, Hacker further suggests as obvious the device comprises a guide feature (Figs. 2-3 proper alignment of cartridge 22 will require some form of guide within housing 12) for aligning a cartridge.
Regarding claim 4, Hacker discloses the cartridge further comprises programmable memory (¶0029).
Regarding claim 5, Hacker discloses the programmable memory is configured to store a value associated with the amount of media contained in the media storage area (¶0029).
Regarding claim 6, Hacker discloses the motor has a shaft that rotates (¶0033).
Regarding claim 9, Hacker discloses the media is a liquid (¶0024).
Regarding claim 11, Hacker discloses the media contains a medication (¶0029).
Regarding claim 12, Hacker discloses the media contains a drug and/or a supplement (¶0029).
Regarding claim 13, Hacker discloses the device further comprises a user interface (Figs. 2-3 #14; ¶0031) for displaying information associated with the media.
Regarding claim 14, Hacker discloses the information associated with the media is an amount of media dispensed (¶0031).
Regarding claim 15, Hacker discloses the user interface accepts touch inputs for controlling the device (¶0023).
Regarding claim 16, Hacker discloses the device is in communication with a mobile device (¶0041).
Regarding claim 17, Hacker discloses the device is in communication with a server (¶0041).
Regarding claim 21, Hacker discloses the device further comprises a sensor (¶0033 – encoder) for determining a position of the driver component.
Regarding claim 22, Hacker discloses the sensor reads the position of a movable portion of the motor (¶0033).
Regarding claim 25, Hacker discloses the sensor is configured to read a position of the driver component (¶0033).
Regarding claim 27, Hacker discloses the movable surface that changes the volume of the media storage area is part of a plunger (Figs. 2-3; ¶0024).
Regarding claim 28, Hacker discloses the movable surface that changes the volume of the media storage area is integrally formed with the media storage area (Figs. 2-3; ¶0024).
Regarding claim 30, Hacker discloses an amount of media to be dispensed is communicated from a computer network to the device (¶¶0029, 0041).
Regarding claim 31, Hacker discloses information associated with the amount of media dispensed is stored within a computer network (¶0041). Further the doctor treating the patient will obviously store patient data in a computer network (e.g. ¶0029).
Regarding claim 32, Hacker discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on information read from the programmable memory (¶¶0029-0030).
Regarding claim 33, Hacker discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on user characteristics related to a user (¶0029 – as determined by doctor recommendation).
Regarding claim 34, Hacker discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on a selection by a user (¶¶0029, 0041 – user selection as an activation of the device for use).
Regarding claim 35, Hacker discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on information received from or provide by a third party (¶0029 – doctor).
Regarding claim 36, Hacker further suggests as obvious the media dose information is based, at least in part, by determination of a data analysis program (¶0029 – a doctor will obviously analyze data to determine a recommended dose).
Regarding claim 38, Hacker discloses the media is an ingested media (¶0027). Under broadest reasonable interpretation a vaporized material which is absorbed in a user’s airways be may considered as having been ingested by the user. Further, at least a portion of an inhaled vaporized material will be expected to travel into a user’s esophagus, where the material can be ingested.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9, 11-12, 18-19, 26-29, 31, 33-36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobutani et al. (U.S. Pub. 2007/0062520).
Regarding claim 1, Nobutani discloses a system for dispensing media (Fig. 5; ¶¶0043-0051), comprising: a device (Fig. 5 #1; ¶0043) comprising: a driver component (Fig. 5 #32; ¶0044) having an end configured to act on a movable surface of a cartridge (Fig. 5; ¶0044 – screw shaft 32 acts on elastic film 31), a motor (Fig. 5 #9; ¶0044) configured to controllably position the driver component, at least one hardware processor (Fig. 5 #5; ¶0046), and instructions that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, receive media dose information and control the motor based on the media dose information in order to dispense a dose of the media (¶0052 – based on prescription); a cartridge (Fig. 5 #3; ¶0043) having: a media storage area for storing the media (Fig. 5 internal of #3b; ¶0044), at least one movable surface (Fig. 5 #31; ¶0044) that changes a volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component (¶¶0044, 0050-0051), and an outlet (Fig. 5 #3a; ¶0044) through which the media is dispensed in order to change the volume of the media stored in the media storage area under control of the driver component.
Nobutani fails to explicitly disclose the instructions in one or more software modules.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizing that the device of Nobutani is programmed for performance based on a patient’s unique prescription (¶¶0020, 0052) would have considered it prima facie obvious to have specified the patient’s prescription and controls based thereon would be embodied in software of the device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Nobutani the instructions in one or more software modules based upon an obvious design choice expectation of one of ordinary skill in the programming arts of embodying controls based on a patient’s unique prescription in software.
Regarding claim 2, Nobutani discloses the device is configured to receive the cartridge (¶0020).
Regarding claim 3, Nobutani further suggests as obvious the device comprises a guide feature (Fig. 5 proper alignment of medicine ejection unit 3 will require some form of guide within main body case 1) for aligning the cartridge.
Regarding claim 6, Nobutani discloses the motor has a shaft that rotates (¶0049).
Regarding claim 9, Nobutani discloses the media is a liquid (¶0044).
Regarding claim 11, Nobutani discloses the media contains a medication (¶¶0044, 0052).
Regarding claim 12, Nobutani discloses the media contains a drug and/or a supplement (¶¶0044, 0052).
Regarding claim 18, Nobutani discloses the device further comprises a component (Fig. 5 #34, 35; ¶0044) that amplifies the force of the motor and connects the motor to the driver component.
Regarding claim 19, Nobutani discloses the component that amplifies the force of the motor is comprised of one or more gears (Fig. 5 #34, 35; ¶0044). The instant claim does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding claim 26, Nobutani discloses the driver component is configured to retract after dispensing a dose of media (¶0044 – e.g. reciprocates horizontally).
Regarding claim 27, Nobutani discloses the movable surface that changes the volume of the media storage area is part of a plunger (Fig. 5; ¶0044).
Regarding claim 28, Nobutani discloses the movable surface that changes the volume of the media storage area is integrally formed with the media storage area (¶0044).
Regarding claim 29, Nobutani discloses the media storage area is made of a flexible material (¶0044 – flexible film 30).
Regarding claim 31, Nobutani fails to explicitly disclose information associated with the amount of media dispensed is stored within a computer network.
However, it is noted that the storing within a computer network is not meaningfully linked to the limitations of claim 1 and is thus particularly broad in scope. For example, research data relating to effects of the particular amount of media will obviously be stored in a computer network. Additionally, the doctor providing the prescription for the patient will obviously store information about the amount of media intended for dispensing on a computer network. The claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over Nobutani.
Regarding claim 33, Nobutani discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on user characteristics related to a user (¶0052 – a prescription is based on characteristics of a patient).
Regarding claim 34, Nobutani discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on a selection by a user (¶0052 – a prescription is based on a patient’s selection to visit a doctor).
Regarding claim 35, Nobutani discloses the media dose information is based, at least in part, on information received from or provide by a third party (¶0052 – a prescription is provided by a doctor).
Regarding claim 36, Nobutani further suggests as obvious the media dose information is based, at least in part, by determination of a data analysis program (¶0052 – a doctor will obviously analyze data to determine a prescription).
Regarding claim 38, Nobutani discloses the media is an ingested media (¶0027). Under broadest reasonable interpretation a vaporized material which is absorbed in a user’s airways be may considered as having been ingested by the user. Further, at least a portion of an inhaled vaporized material will be expected to travel into a user’s esophagus, where the material can be ingested.
Regarding claim 39, Nobutani discloses the device comprises an opening through which the driver component can extend when acted upon by the motor (Fig. 5 opening leading into #3).
Claim(s) 16-17, 30-31 and 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0172211).
Regarding claim 16, Batista fails to explicitly disclose the device is in communication with a mobile device.
However, Batista teaches that a code segment used by the device may be passed, forwarded, or transmitted via a variety of means, to include network transmission (¶0053). One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered communication by way of network transmission to be obviously suggestive of communication with a mobile device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Batista the device is in communication with a mobile device based upon the teaching in Batista that a code segment used by the device may be passed, forwarded, or transmitted via network transmission, which is obviously suggestive of communication with a mobile device.
Regarding claim 17, Batista fails to explicitly disclose the device is in communication with a server.
However, Batista teaches that a code segment used by the device may be passed, forwarded, or transmitted via a variety of means, to include network transmission (¶0053). One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered communication by way of network transmission to be obviously suggestive of communication with a server.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Batista the device is in communication with a server based upon the teaching in Batista that a code segment used by the device may be passed, forwarded, or transmitted via network transmission, which is obviously suggestive of communication with a server.
Regarding claim 30, Batista fails to explicitly disclose an amount of media to be dispensed is communicated from a computer network to the device.
However, Batista teaches that a code segment used by the device may be passed, forwarded, or transmitted via a variety of means, to include network transmission (¶0053). Batista already teaches the amount of dispensing can be predetermined (¶0089).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Batista an amount of media to be dispensed is communicated from a computer network to the device based upon the teaching in Batista that a code segment used by the device may be passed, forwarded, or transmitted via network transmission, which is obviously suggestive of receiving the amount to be predetermined for a dose from a computer network.
Regarding claim 31, Batista fails to explicitly disclose information associated with the amount of media dispensed is stored within a computer network.
However, it is noted that the storing within a computer network is not meaningfully linked to the limitations of claim 1 and is thus particularly broad in scope. For example, research data relating to effects of the particular amount of media will obviously be stored in a computer network. Additionally, the programmer of the electric circuitry 10 will obviously store information about the amount of media intended for dispensing on a computer network. The claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over Batista.
Regarding claim 33, Batista fails to explicitly disclose the media dose information is based, at least in part, on user characteristics related to a user.
However, it is noted that the user characteristics are not meaningfully implemented by the claim into a determination of the media dose information. Thus, for example, the intent for the device of Batista to be used as an “adult vaper” (e.g. ¶0101) represents a user characteristic (e.g. “adult”) which relates to the media dose. The claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over Batista.
Regarding claim 34, Batista fails to explicitly disclose the media dose information is based, at least in part, on a selection by a user.
However, it is noted that the selection by the user is not meaningfully implemented by the claim. Thus, the selection by a user to use the device of Batista alone can suitably read on the claim. The claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over Batista.
Regarding claim 35, Batista fails to explicitly disclose the media dose information is based, at least in part, on information received from or provided by a third party.
However, it is noted that the third party information is not meaningfully linked to the limitations of claim 1 and is thus particularly broad in scope. For example, research data relating to effects of the particular amount of media may be considered third party information. The claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over Batista.
Regarding claim 36, Batista fails to explicitly disclose the media dose information is based, at least in part, by determination of a data analysis program.
However, it is noted that the data analysis program is not meaningfully linked to the limitations of claim 1 and is thus particularly broad in scope. For example, research data used to determine the particular amount of media will obviously be evaluated using a data analysis program. The claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over Batista.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilder et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0177958) in view of Judson et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0171476).
Regarding claim 23, Wilder is silent as to whether the sensor is an optical encoder. Wilder does not detail the specific species of encoder.
Judson teaches a controlled medication injecting apparatus (Fig. 2) and teaches that positional sensing of a motor can be accomplished with either Hall-effect sensors (¶0032) or an optical encoder (¶0033). Judson thus establishes that it would have been an obvious design choice in the motor arts to have selected as a sensor between Hall-effect sensors or an optical encoder when selecting a species for motor position detection.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Wilder the sensor is an optical encoder based upon an obvious design choice of an optical encoder as a particular species of encoder known to be useful in the motor arts for positional sensing of a motor in view of Judson.
Regarding claim 24, Wilder is silent as to whether the sensor is a hall effect sensor. Wilder does not detail the specific species of encoder.
Judson teaches a controlled medication injecting apparatus (Fig. 2) and teaches that positional sensing of a motor can be accomplished with either Hall-effect sensors (¶0032) or an optical encoder (¶0033). Judson thus establishes that it would have been an obvious design choice in the motor arts to have selected as a sensor between Hall-effect sensors or an optical encoder when selecting a species for motor position detection.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Wilder the sensor is a hall effect sensor based upon an obvious design choice of a hall effect sensor as a particular species of encoder known to be useful in the motor arts for positional sensing of a motor in view of Judson.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacker (U.S. Pub. 2018/0296778) in view of Judson et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0171476).
Regarding claim 23, Hacker is silent as to whether the sensor is an optical encoder. Hacker does not detail the specific species of encoder.
Judson teaches a controlled medication injecting apparatus (Fig. 2) and teaches that positional sensing of a motor can be accomplished with either Hall-effect sensors (¶0032) or an optical encoder (¶0033). Judson thus establishes that it would have been an obvious design choice in the motor arts to have selected as a sensor between Hall-effect sensors or an optical encoder when selecting a species for motor position detection.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Hacker the sensor is an optical encoder based upon an obvious design choice of an optical encoder as a particular species of encoder known to be useful in the motor arts for positional sensing of a motor in view of Judson.
Regarding claim 24, Hacker is silent as to whether the sensor is a hall effect sensor. Hacker does not detail the specific species of encoder.
Judson teaches a controlled medication injecting apparatus (Fig. 2) and teaches that positional sensing of a motor can be accomplished with either Hall-effect sensors (¶0032) or an optical encoder (¶0033). Judson thus establishes that it would have been an obvious design choice in the motor arts to have selected as a sensor between Hall-effect sensors or an optical encoder when selecting a species for motor position detection.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Hacker the sensor is a hall effect sensor based upon an obvious design choice of a hall effect sensor as a particular species of encoder known to be useful in the motor arts for positional sensing of a motor in view of Judson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references. Note is made of the breadth of claim 1 and the fact it is not drawn to an inhalation device. Further prior art readable on claim 1 include: van der Linden et al. (U.S. Patent 5950619; Figs. 1A-2 & 4-5), Gaydos et al. (U.S. Pub. 2008/0308580; Figs. 1 & 5-6) and Yamada et al. (U.S. Pub. 2009/133691; Fig. 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785