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 .
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 17, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 2 and 5, the term “PCB” is used, it is unclear as to what is being claimed as these letters do not spell a word and it is not clear if it is an acronym or a product name or trademark. Clarification is needed.
In claim 4, line 3 the term “No. 1 fixation member” is used it is unclear as to what is being referred to as there is no “No. 1 fixation member” referenced in the specification and the drawings. Clarification is needed. For the purposed of continued prosecution this part is interpreted as the part of the hinge attached to part 12b in Fig. 3.
In claim 5, line 4 the term “No. 2 fixation member” is used it is unclear as to what is being referred to as there is no “No. 2 fixation member” referenced in the specification and the drawings. Clarification is needed. For the purposes of continued prosecution this part is interpreted as the part of the hinge attached to part 21 in Fig. 3.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent No. JP2017/158944 to Hattori et al. (A machine translation of the document is enclosed with the action and referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, the Hattori patent teaches a medication management device characterized by a holding unit (see Fig. 1) capable of holding the packaged medicine 30; and a detection unit (see Fig. 4, see page 4 of translation) capable of detecting the state of the holding unit and changes; and when the detection unit detects a change in the state of the holding unit, a judgment unit 54 that determines whether the medicine was placed or removed. See Figs. 4 and 7 and pages 4 and 7 of the translation.
Regarding claim 2, a PCB (this is interpreted as the object in Fig. 1 the flat part) on which the timing (clock 51) of use of the medicine is displayed on the surface (this is interpreted as the LED); and a holding unit (part 11 that holds the medicine) provided for each of the timing displayed on the surface; and a detection unit provided at a position corresponding to the holding unit on the surface. See Fig. 4 and page 7 of translation.
Regarding claim 3, a judgment unit that also determines the timing at which the medicine is placed or removed based on the position of each detection unit. See pages 7 and 8 of translation that state that the timing of the medication is programmed and there is notification system.
Regarding claim 6, a communication control means that is capable of transmitting information determined by the judgment unit to the outside through a network line. See page 3 of translation where wireless is stated.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. JP2017/158944 to Hattori et al. in view of Chinese Patent No. CN209296566 to Xue et a. (A machine translation of the document is enclosed with the action and referred to herein).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the Hattori patent teaches a holding unit, equipped with No. 1 fixation member (this is interpreted as the hinge part in Fig. 4 attached to part 11) fixed to the surface provided on No. 1 fixation member, and No. 1 rotation member having a rotation body that is rotatable with respect to No. 1 fixation member; a No. 2 fixation member (this is interpreted as the base area of the hinge in Fig. 4 attached to part 113) the lower end is fixed to the rotation body and rotatable with respect to the No. 1 fixation member and a plate-shaped member pressed against the detection unit provided on the surface by the elastic force of the elastic body in its natural state. See Fig. 4.
However, the Hattori patent lacks a specific teaching of an elastic body.
The Xue patent teaches a clip having a pivot 16 with elastic body 11 and fixation member 4. See Fig. 1. The Xue patent was cited for the sole purpose of showing that this style of pivot is a well-known design that uses an elastic body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Hattori patent to have the elastic body as taught by Xue, as it would have been combining known prior art elements using known methods to provide the predictable result of a pivot style clip that uses an elastic body to keep one end close and this is a well-known design.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. JP2017/158944 to Hattori et al. (A machine translation of the document is enclosed with the action and referred to herein).
Regarding claim 7, the Hattori patent teaches all of the elements in claim except for the explicit teaching of a server to receive the information.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Hattori patent to have a server receive the information, since it is well known in the art that medical equipment can be backed up to servers as this is common type of computer structure to provide the predictable result of robust backups for saving information.
Regarding claim 8, the Hattori patent teaches all of the elements of the claim except for the explicit teaching of a terminal capable of receiving the information from the server and notifying the information received.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Hattori patent to have a terminal capable of receiving the information from the server and notifying the information received, since it is well known in the art that medical equipment can be use servers to control equipment along with a terminal to allow a user to see the information relating to equipment and that these are well known types of structures that are used in the art as computers are commonly known to be used in the art which is a type of terminal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Japanese Patent No. JP2019058613 to Aoki et al. teaches a calendar for medicine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-3448. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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 S 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.
/JUSTIN HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655