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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al, US Pub. 2020/0001027.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, Jackson et al disclose a metered-dose inhaler security system comprising: at least one cartridge having
Jackson et al fail to disclose identifying cartridges based on an color coded identifying marks, but instead use barcodes for identifying the cartridges. However, the distinguishing features do not contribute to an inventive step. Whether cartridges are identified by color coding or barcodes merely amounts to a design option. Furthermore, color coded identification is commonly known in the art. For instance, US Pub. 2019/0175847, claim 13, discloses a color detection sensor for detecting color of an inhaler. Jackson et al further provide a system which allows or stops the application from a therapeutic agent based on matching the read cartridge ID and associated information retrieved from the cloud. Jackson et al match prescription information instead of color coding information. Therefore, Jackson et al disclose features which are considered as equivalent to the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations merely amount to an implementation detail and can therefore not contribute to an inventive step. They are considered as obvious steps derived from Jackson et al.
Regarding claim 3, the step of using a mobile device to scan the code and to upload data associated to the code into the database is common in order to verify that information scanned by the mobile device, which therefore, obvious.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art tracks the volume of the therapeutic agent and time of uses in order administer the appropriate dosage and to monitor the agent expiration data. Therefore, such limitations would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 5-6, it is derivable from Jackson et al from Jackson et al (see feature mapping for claim 1).
Regarding claims 7-11, the limitations merely amount to an implementation detail and can therefore not contribute to an inventive step. They are considered as obvious steps derived from Jackson et al.
Regarding claims 13-16 and 18-20, the limitations have been discussed above in the rejections of claims 2-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876