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
Claims 2 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 5, “a tray storage position” should say “said tray storage position”
Claim 12, line 3, “a plurality of trays” should say “said plurality of trays”
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "on one of the walls" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There has been no walls previous recited. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “on one of the walls” as “a wall”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "on one of the walls" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There has been no walls previous recited for the central cabinet. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “on one of the walls” as “a wall”.
Claims 11 and 12 recites the limitation "said manipulator" in lines 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “said manipulator” as “said automatic movement assembly”
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerra (US 20050035138 A1) in view of Park (US 20070078562 A1).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) discussed above, Guerra (par. 0002-0014, 0028-0071, 0085-0096, figs. 1-11) discloses a system for the storage and movement of medicines comprising: a plurality of trays each intended to house at least one medicine to be administered to a patient (par. 0010), a ward cabinet for the storage of said plurality of trays (0029) comprising: - a frame delimiting a housing compartment (par. 0029), - a plurality of supports each configured to receive at least one respective tray (par. 0010, 0031), - a movement assembly arranged at least partly inside the housing compartment for the movement of said plurality of trays (par. 0051) from a tray storage position towards a tray delivery position (par. 0041, 0052, fig. 2), - a delivery opening (fig. 2) positioned at the point where said tray delivery position is located and formed on one of the walls of the frame and intended for the passage of said trays. Guerra fails to disclose the ward trolley.
However, Park discloses a trolley (cart 10, fig.1) to exchange trays (trays 34 with containers 76, figs.2-6) and including: a body (body 16, fig.1) bounding a housing compartment (figs.1-2), a worktop (top member 18 and work surface 24, fig.1) positioned above the housing compartment, an entry area and an exit area for trays (door 22, figs.1-2), an automatic movement assembly arranged partly inside the housing compartment and configured to receive said trays and move said trays between the entry and exit areas (control assembly 60 controls movement of trays 34, figs.2-6, paragraphs [0023, 0026]), and entry opening arranged at the point where said entry area is located.
Guerra and Park are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medicine systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guerra with the trolley of Park with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results allowing multiple medicines to be transported by a trolley from a central storage cabinet throughout a building requiring the use to take less trips and be more efficient while still safely securing the medicine.
Regarding claim 2 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) discussed above, Guerra in combination with Park, Guerra discloses wherein said movement assembly of said ward cabinet comprises gripping means (tines 130, figs.2-11) for the grip of at least one tray (product 12, figs.2-11) between: - a tray storage position (shelves 16, figs.2), wherein the gripping means are close to said support to allow the association thereof with a respective tray (figs.2-11), and - said tray delivery position (figs.1-11), wherein the gripping means are close to the opening (opening 48, fig.1) to allow the passage of each tray through said opening.
Regarding claim 3 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) discussed above, Guerra in combination with Park, Guerra discloses the movement assembly of said ward cabinet can be shifted along at least three directions (figs.2-11).
Regarding claim 4 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) discussed above, Guerra in combination with Park, Park discloses said exit area of said ward trolley is located in a position close to said worktop (door 22 is close to top 18 and work surface 24, fig.1).
Regarding claim 5 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) discussed above, Guerra in combination with Park, Park discloses wherein said worktop of said ward trolley comprises at least one exit opening (door 22, fig.1) arranged at the point where said exit area is located and adapted to allow at least one tray to exit said housing compartment.
Regarding claim 6 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) discussed above, Guerra in combination with Park, Park discloses wherein said movement assembly of said ward trolley is provided with at least one shelf (tray 34 supports containers 76, figs.2-6) adapted to receive and support said at least one tray to move said at least one tray it inside said housing compartment (figs.2-6).
Regarding claim 7 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) discussed above, Guerra in combination with Park, Park discloses wherein said ward trolley comprises at least one storage area for the storage of said trays (storage area is inside the body 16, figs.1-6), and wherein said movement assembly comprises movement means (drive motor 6, paragraph [0022]) connected to said shelf to move said shelf it at least between the entry area, the storage area and the exit area (motor 6 rotates the trays 34, figs.2-6, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 8 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) discussed above, Guerra in combination with Park, Park discloses wherein said ward trolley comprises interfacing means (computer peripherals 26, fig.1) configured to operate in a receiving configuration, wherein said interfacing means they are adapted to receive said tray to arrange said tray it-on said shelf (computer controls electronic system control assembly 60, figs.1-6, paragraphs [0018 and 0023]), and a releasing configuration wherein said interfacing means they are adapted to release said tray from said shelf (computer controls electronic system control assembly 60, figs.1-6, paragraphs [0018 and 0023]).
Regarding claim 9 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) discussed above, Guerra in combination with Park discloses wherein said delivery opening (opening 48, fig.1, Guerra) of said ward cabinet and said entry opening (door 22, fig.1, Park) of said ward trolley are located at a substantially corresponding height above the ground (opening 48 is at the height of the top worksurface of 24 and door 22 extends up to top work surface 18 of trolley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the door 22 and opening 48 are at substantially corresponding height above the ground).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12544289 in view of Guerra (US 20050035138 A1). Guerra (par. 0002-0014, 0028-0071, 0085-0096, figs. 1-11) discloses a system for the storage and movement of medicines comprising: a plurality of trays each intended to house at least one medicine to be administered to a patient (par. 0010), a ward cabinet for the storage of said plurality of trays (0029) comprising: - a frame delimiting a housing compartment (par. 0029), - a plurality of supports each configured to receive at least one respective tray (par. 0010, 0031), - a movement assembly arranged at least partly inside the housing compartment for the movement of said plurality of trays (par. 0051) from a tray storage position towards a tray delivery position (par. 0041, 0052, fig. 2), - a delivery opening (fig. 2) positioned at the point where said tray delivery position is located and formed on one of the walls of the frame and intended for the passage of said trays.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 depends upon claim 1, but claim 10 has the limitation of “the system comprising: a central cabinet for the storage of a plurality of medicines comprising: - a frame bounding a housing compartment, - a plurality of first supports configured to receive said medicines at the point where a medicine storage sector is located, - a plurality of second supports configured to receive said trays at the point where a tray storage sector is located, - an automatic movement assembly arranged at least partly inside said housing compartment for the grip and movement of said medicines towards said trays to insert said medicines them at least partly inside said trays,- an opening positioned at the point where a tray delivery sector is located, which opening is formed on one of the walls of the frame and intended for the passage of said trays.” The primary reference of Guerra fails to disclose an entirely different central cabinet system as claimed in claim 10. Modifying the system of Guerra to disclose all of the limitations of claim 10 would require multiple teaching references on top of the current teaching reference and would be hindsight. For the reason above claim 10 has allowable subject matter, but has 112 issues as discussed above.
Claims 11-15 depend upon claim 10 giving them the same allowable subject matter, but also have 112 issues as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613