DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Receipt of Applicant’s Remarks filed July 21, 2026, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 15-17 have been previously withdrawn. Claims 5, 13, and 14 have been previously canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 18-20 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112(a) Rejections, starting pg. 11 of Remarks:
A. Response to the Section 112(a) Rejections
Claims 1-12, 14, and 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant submits remarks herein to indicate where in the specification the Applicant finds support for the present claims. Claim 18 "determining" step
From the Non-Final Rejection dated 4/21/2026 (section (4))…
“determining, by the server system based on the first sensor data, the first location data, and the second location data, whether the lid of the respective compartment has been opened during a particular time period at a particular location,…”
Support could not be found for determining the lid has been opened during a particular time and at a particular location.
In the Office Action, the Examiner indicates that they cannot find a teaching for the phrase of claim 18 "determining ... whether the lid of the respective compartment has been opened during a particular time period at a particular location." See Office Action pages 12-15. The following is a detailed description of where the Applicant finds support for this concept within the Specification. Of note, the following portions of the Specification are not necessarily the only portions of the Specification that provide support for this language.
First, the specification makes clear that the technology (e.g., the server system) receives sensor data (including lid-opening sensor data) and location data (including both base-station distance data and GPS data) from the medication dispenser. See Specification paras. [0050] and [0060]. The server system is the central processing entity that acts on all received data to manage medication dispensing. See Specification paras. [0010] and [0048]. The server system may determine whether the lid was opened during a particular time period based on the first sensor data. Paragraph [0053] discloses that the server system determines, based on time-stamped first sensor data, whether the lid of the respective compartment was opened during a particular time period.
There is no doubt the specification teaches determining a lid opening during a particular time period.
Further, the server system can determine the location of the dispenser based on location data. Paragraph [0060] discloses that the server system determines the location of the medication dispenser based on location data, including GPS data and base-station distance information via multilateration. The specification thus discloses the server system using both the first location data (base-station distance) and the second location data (GPS) to determine location.
The specification teaches tracking (determine) the location of the dispenser. Therefore, the system knows the location of the device and can determine the time the lid is opened. It does not appear the specification combines the two.
Second, the specification ties location and time together in the context of medication compliance. The entire system is designed to ensure that a patient takes the right medication at the right time. The specification discloses that the server system uses location data to track the dispenser (paras. [0045], [0060]) and uses sensor data to determine whether medication was accessed during a scheduled time (para. [0053]). Paragraph [0065] further discloses that the server system can determine that the lid was opened "at a time that is different from the particular time period" and generate an alert - demonstrating that the server system evaluates contextual conditions (not just raw lid status) when making its determination. A person skilled in the art would understand that location is an analogous contextual condition that the server system - which already has access to location data - would naturally incorporate into its compliance determination, particularly since the specification discloses the system's purpose of ensuring safe and accurate medication intake (para. [0031]).
The requirement is not if a person skilled in the art would incorporate location data into the determining step, an adequate written description is, can one of ordinary skill reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing (see MPEP 2161.01). Also, it has to be either explicitly taught, inherent or implicit.
There are no explicit or inherent teachings. Therefore, Applicant must be arguing it is implicit.
To make the argument, there needs to be a link between lid is open and at a particular location.
It’s obvious why it is important to determine if a lid is opened at a particular time in order to ensure medicine is taken at the prescribed time (physiological benefit).
What is a physiological benefit of determining a particular location where medication is taken (e.g., is it better to take meds outdoors than indoors)?
Third, the notification routing depends on location, linking location to the determination. The specification discloses that the routing of communications between the dispenser and the server system depends on whether the dispenser is within range of the mobile device's local network or must communicate over the telecommunications network. See Specification paras. [0034]-[0035] and [0049]. This means the server system inherently accounts for the dispenser's location when processing sensor data and generating notifications. The server system must know the dispenser's location relative to the mobile device to route communications appropriately, and it receives this location information from the same location data (base-station and GPS) referenced in the claim. The determination of whether the lid was opened and the subsequent notification are therefore inherently informed by location data, because the system's operation depends on it.
Respectfully, location needs to be linked to opening the lid. Tracking the location of the dispenser in the specification is independent of whether the lid is opened or closed.
Combining known data inputs in a single determination is within the skill of the art. The specification places all three data inputs - first sensor data, first location data, and second location data - in the hands of the server system as part of a unified medication management system. A person skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that the server system, which already receives and processes all of these inputs for their individually disclosed purposes, could combine them into a single determination step. The claim does not require any new algorithm or technique beyond what is disclosed - it simply requires the server system to use the data it already has, for the purpose the specification already describes.
There is no motivation taught to combine location data with opening the lid of the dispenser. There is also no teaching of how the time of the lid being opened is related to the location of the dispenser.
The above remarks apply similarly to the Section 112a rejection of dependent claim 6. Claim 18 "wherein the respective compartment ..." clause
In the Office Action, the Examiner indicates that they cannot find a teaching for the phrase of claim 18 "wherein the respective compartment is configured to hold medicines to be consumed by a user ... during the particular time period at the particular location." See Office Action pages 15-16. The following is a detailed description of where the Applicant finds support for this concept within the Specification. Of note, the following portions of the Specification are not necessarily the only portions of the Specification that provide support for this language.
From the Rejection (section (5))…
“wherein the respective compartment is configured to hold medicines to be consumed by a user of the portable electronic medication dispenser during the particular time period at the particular location;”
The specification discloses compartments configured to hold medicines to be consumed during a particular time period. Paragraph [0051] states: "a respective compartment can be configured to hold medicines to be consumed by a user of the medication dispenser during the particular time period." It gives the example of a first compartment holding medication to be taken between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM on Monday, a second compartment for 8:00 PM-10:00 PM on Monday, and so on. The time-period aspect of the limitation is directly supported.
There is no doubt time period is linked to hold medicines.
Also, from the specification….
“In some implementations, the container 300 can be configured to store items other than medications. For example, the container 300 can be configured to store sensitive or valuable items. Such sensitive or valuable items can include, for example, money, jewelry, documents, personal artifacts, artwork, or electronics. The container 300 can enable tracking of the contents stored inside the container 300. For example, the container 300 can be used to detect the location of the items when inside the container 300, whether a lid of a compartment 306 of the container 300 has been opened, and whether any items have been removed from the container 300. As another example, a user can be alerted if the container 300 has been opened (e.g., items stored inside the container 300 have been tampered with or stolen).” [0041]
Therefore, Applicant’s specification teaches detect location of items inside the container when the lid is opened. This helps to determine if items have been stolen. The specification therefore links the location of items inside a container to lid open but does not link the location of the container itself with the opening of a lid.
As described above, the specification further discloses that the system tracks the location of the dispenser. See Specification paras. [0045] and [0060]. The system therefore knows where the dispenser - and by extension its compartments and their contents - is located at any given time. Additionally, the specification discloses that medication consumption is expected to occur where the dispenser is located. The technology is premised on the patient interacting with the dispenser to take medication. The dispenser's compartments hold medicines for scheduled consumption (para. [0051]), and the system monitors whether the patient opens the compartment during the scheduled time (para. [0053]). Since the patient must be physically co-located with the dispenser to open a compartment and remove medication, the location of the dispenser at the scheduled time is inherently the location at which consumption is expected to occur. A person skilled in the art would understand that a compartment configured to hold medicines for a particular time period implicitly holds medicines to be consumed wherever the dispenser is located during that time period.
The Applicant’s specification actually teaches detect the location of items inside the container and lid opening and provides reasoning for this (determine theft has happened), yet fails to teach or provide teachings or motivation for opening a lid of a container at a particular location.
It is not inherent or explicit for a respective compartment configured to hold medicines at a particular location. For it to be implicit, there should be teachings of a link of some kind showing a compartment configured to hold medicine and at particular location of the dispenser itself.
The specification links location awareness to the medication compliance workflow. The specification discloses that the system routes notifications differently depending on the dispenser's location - via a local network when the dispenser is near the mobile device, and via the telecommunications network when it is not. See Specification paras [0034]-[0035], [0049]. Thus, the technology's medication compliance workflow already incorporates location as a relevant parameter. The system does not merely ask "was the lid opened during the time period?" in isolation - it operates in a location-aware context where the dispenser's position determines how the system communicates and responds.
Respectfully, the above is not linking compartment configured to hold medicine with a particular location of a dispenser.
The specification's disclosure of time-based compartment configuration, combined with its disclosure of location tracking, reasonably conveys that the compartments hold medicines to be consumed during a particular time period at the location where the dispenser happens to be during that period.
The above is analogous to arguing that a person can track or locate their car because it has GPS, therefore, they can also tell if the door was opened at a particular location. It would not be inherent or implicit for a system providing GPS information of location of a vehicle to also determine the location the door of a car was opened.
Claim 18 "in response to a determination that the lid..." clause
From the Rejection (section (6))…
“in response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period at the particular location,”
In the Office Action, the Examiner indicates that they cannot find a teaching for the phrase of claim 18 "in response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period at the particular location ..." See Office Action pages 16- 17. The following is a detailed description of where the Applicant finds support for this concept within the Specification. Of note, the following portions of the Specification are not necessarily the only portions of the Specification that provide support for this language.
The specification directly discloses a determination that the lid has not been opened during a particular time period. Paragraph [0053] discloses that the server system determines, based on time-stamped first sensor data, whether the lid of the respective compartment was opened during a particular time period. Paragraph [0054] discloses that "in response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period, the server system can cause the wireless device to output a notification."
The determination is necessarily made with respect to a location because the sensor data is generated at a location. The first sensor data that forms the basis of the determination is generated by a sensor physically located on the dispenser. See Specification para. [0052]. The dispenser is at a particular location when it generates that sensor data - a location the server system knows because it concurrently receives location data from the dispenser. See Specification para. [0060]. When the server system determines that the lid has not been opened during a particular time period, it is inherently determining that the lid has not been opened during that time period while the dispenser was at whatever location(s) the dispenser occupied during that period. A person skilled in the art would understand that a determination about the lid's status during a time period is implicitly a determination about the lid's status at the location where the dispenser was during that time period.
Respectfully, there is no inherency in a lid not being opened providing location information.
Using the car analogy, the door is not opened because I am at my driveway? The door could be opened or closed. There is just no inherency here.
As described above, the specification discloses that the server system has simultaneous access to both sensor data and location data. The server system receives sensor data (para. [0050]) and location data (para. [0060]) from the dispenser as part of the same medication management workflow. A person skilled in the art would understand that when the server system makes a determination about the lid's status, it does so in the context of all the data it has received, including location data. Further, the notification routing that follows the determination is location-dependent, confirming that location is integral to the determination. The claim itself - and the specification - describe that the notification generated in response to the determination is routed differently depending on the dispenser's location: via a local network when the dispenser is at the first location (near the mobile device) and via the telecommunications network when at the second location. See Specification paras. [0034]-[0035] and [0049]. This means the system must know the dispenser's location at the time of the determination in order to route the notification correctly.
For the system to know the dispenser’s location at the time of determination of some undefined process to link the physical location, an associated location time (if it exists), with the time of not opened, which is not taught.
The specification discloses determinations that account for contextual conditions beyond raw lid status. Paragraph [0065] discloses that the server system can determine that the lid was opened "at a time that is different from the particular time period" and generate an alert. This shows the server system does not merely detect a binary lid-open/lid-closed state - it evaluates the circumstances under which the lid was or was not opened. The system assesses whether the lid event occurred under the expected conditions (the right time). A person skilled in the art would understand that location is an analogous condition that the server system - which already receives and processes location data - could incorporate into its assessment of whether the lid was opened under the expected circumstances (the right time and the right place).
From paragraph [0065]….
“In some implementations, the server system can determine that the lid of the respective compartment has been opened at a time that is different from the particular time period based on the first sensor data. For example, the lid can be opened by mistake or someone has intentionally opened the lid at a time that is different from the particular time. In response to the determination that the lid of the respective compartment has been opened at a time that is different from the particular time period, the wireless device can cause the wireless device to provide an alert to a user of the wireless device. Such an alert can be important, especially when it is important that the medication is taken at the particular time (e.g., to avoid overdosing).” [0065]
There needs to be teaching of some type of link between compartment not opened and location.
Claim 18 "generating, by the server system, a notification -.." clause
From the Rejection (section (7))…
“generating, by the server system, a notification indicating that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period at the particular location,”
In the Office Action, the Examiner indicates that they cannot find a teaching for the phrase of claim 18 "generating, by the server system, a notification indicating that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period at the particular location ..." See Office Action pages 17-18. The following is a detailed description of where the Applicant finds support for this concept within the Specification. Of note, the following portions of the Specification are not necessarily the only portions of the Specification that provide support for this language.
The specification directly discloses generating a notification indicating that the lid has not been opened during a particular time period. Paragraph [0054] states that "in response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period, the server system can cause the wireless device to output a notification indicating that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period."
The above does not teach particular location.
Regarding the location aspect, as described above, the notification is generated by a server system that knows the dispenser's location at the time of generation. A person skilled in the art would understand that a server system generating a notification about a non-event (the lid not being opened) could naturally include in that notification the contextual information it possesses about the non-event - including when and where it did not occur. Further, the specification discloses notifications that convey contextual information, not merely binary status. The notification disclosed in paragraph [0054] is not a generic alert - it specifically "indicat[es] that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period." The notification thus conveys the specific time-based context of the non-event. This demonstrates that the specification contemplates notifications with descriptive content that situates the non-event in its relevant context. A person skilled in the art would understand that location is a relevant piece of contextual information that the server system - which already possesses it - could include in the notification, particularly since the system is designed to help patients and caregivers manage medication compliance across different locations and times.
Similar to above, there is no explicit, inherent or implicit teaching of generating a notification at a particular location.
Further, the specification discloses that location information is presented to users through the GUI. Paragraph [0045] discloses an affordance on the GUI for tracking the location of the container. The system is therefore already configured to communicate location information to the user. A person skilled in the art would understand that a notification about a missed medication event could incorporate the same location information the system already presents through other GUI affordances, thereby telling the user not only that the lid was not opened during the scheduled time but also where the dispenser was when the event was missed.
Respectfully, a person skilled in the art would have to figure out how to use time information from location information (GPS, Bluetooth, etc.) and for some reason map this to when the lid was not opened in order to generate a notification that the lid has not been opened
Claim 18 "threshold distance" limitation
From the Rejection (section (8))…
“wherein the portable electronic medication dispenser is within a threshold distance of a mobile device associated with the portable electronic medication dispenser at the first location, the threshold distance corresponding to a distance of a short-range wireless technology standard,”
and…
“wherein the portable electronic medication dispenser is not within the threshold distance of the mobile device at the second location;…”
In the Office Action, the Examiner indicates that they cannot find a teaching for the phrase of claim 18 "wherein the portable electronic medication dispenser is within a threshold distance of a mobile device ... the threshold distance corresponding to a distance of a short-rage wireless technology standard, and ... wherein [it] is not within the threshold distance of the mobile device ..." See Office Action pages 18-19. The following is a detailed description of where the Applicant finds support for this concept within the Specification. Of note, the following portions of the Specification are not necessarily the only portions of the Specification that provide support for this language.
The specification discloses that the dispenser and the mobile device connect directly over a short-range wireless technology when in proximity. Paragraph [0035] states that "the container 204 can be paired to the wireless device 206 and connect directly over the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi local network when in proximity of each other (e.g., within a range of the local network)." Paragraph [0012] similarly states the dispenser "can be paired to the wireless device and connect directly over Bluetooth or Wi-Fi when in proximity of each other." Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are short-range wireless technology standards. A person skilled in the art would understand that each of these standards has a defined operational range - a maximum distance within which two devices can maintain a connection. This operational range is the "threshold distance corresponding to a distance of a short- range wireless technology standard" recited in the claim.
From Applicant’s specification and only use of standards…
“The NANs of a network 100 formed by the network 100 also include wireless devices 104-1 through 104-7 (referred to individually as "wireless device 104" or collectively as "wireless devices 104") and a core network 1 06. The wireless devices 104-1 through 104-7 can correspond to or include network 100 entities capable of communication using various connectivity standards. For example, a 5G communication channel can use millimeter wave (mmW) access frequencies of 28 GHz or more. In some implementations, the wireless device 104 can operatively couple to a base station 102 over a long-term evolution/longterm evolution-advanced (L TE/L TE-A) communication channel, which is referred to as a 4G communication channel.” [0018]
Therefore, standards are various standards. Threshold distance of a short-range wireless technology standard is not inherently taught and the above standard is related to cellular not short-range technology.
The specification's concept of "in proximity" and "within a range of the local network" is equivalent to "within a threshold distance." The specification uses the phrase "within a range of the local network" (para. [0035]) to describe when the dispenser and mobile device can connect directly. A person skilled in the art would understand that the "range" of a Bluetooth or Wi-Fi network is a distance - Bluetooth Classic has a typical range of approximately 10 meters, Bluetooth Low Energy up to approximately 100 meters, and Wi-Fi typically up to approximately 100 meters indoors. Being "within a range" of such a network is functionally identical to being "within a threshold distance corresponding to a distance of a short-range wireless technology standard." The claim language simply expresses in distance terms what the specification expresses in connectivity terms.
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are different things. They would have different threshold distances if this was even taught.
The specification discloses a first scenario where the devices are in proximity (corresponding to the first location). Paragraphs [0034]-[0035] describe a scenario where the dispenser and the mobile device are within range of the local network and connect directly over Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. In this scenario, communications between the dispenser and the server system are "relayed through the wireless device" over the local network. This corresponds to the claim's "first location" where the dispenser is within the threshold distance of the mobile device.
The specification discloses a second scenario where the devices are not in proximity (corresponding to the second location). Paragraph [0035] states that the dispenser "can also communicate with the server system over the telecommunications network by routing communications through the wireless device" such that "the wireless device can remain synced with the container but without needing to be in proximity to each other." Paragraph [0049] further states that "communications from the electronic medication dispenser to the server system can be routed through the wireless device over the local network when the electronic medication dispenser and the wireless device are in a range of the local network" and that "the communications from the electronic medication dispenser to the server system are routed via the telecommunications network when the electronic medication dispenser and the wireless device are not in the range of the local network." This second scenario - where the devices are not in range of the local network - corresponds to the claim's "second location" where the dispenser is not within the threshold distance of the mobile device.
The only teaching of “distance” from the specification…
“In some implementations, the sensor data includes location data generated by a location tracker of the medication dispenser. The server system can determine a location of the medication dispenser based on the location data. The location data can include GPS tracking data generated by a GPS tracker of the medication dispenser. The location data can also include location data generated based on base stations (e.g., the base stations 102-1 through 102-4 in Figure 1 ). For example, the medication dispenser is in communication with one or more base stations. The location data can include distance information from one or more of the base stations that the medication dispenser is communicating with. For example, the tracking can be based on multilateration (e.g., triangulation) of radio signals between multiple signal sources (e.g., the base stations or WiFi access points) and the medication dispenser.” [0060]
There is no teaching of threshold distance.
Claim 18 affordances limitation
From the Rejection (section (9))…
“wherein the mobile device includes a tracker application that is configured to present one or more affordances on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the mobile device”
In the Office Action, the Examiner indicates that they cannot find a teaching for the phrase of claim 18 "wherein the mobile device includes a tracker application that is configured to present one or more affordances on a graphical user interface ... "See Office Action pages 20-22. The following is a detailed description of where the Applicant finds support for this concept within the Specification. Of note, the following portions of the Specification are not necessarily the only portions of the Specification that provide support for this language.
The specification discloses a software application on the mobile device that presents affordances on a GUI. Paragraph [0042] states that the GUI 400 "can be displayed on a display of a wireless device" and that the GUI "can be associated with a software application operating on the wireless device that is configured to communicate with the server system." Paragraphs [0044]- [0045] describe multiple affordances presented on the GUI, including affordance 404 for locating the container, affordance 406 for generating a schedule, affordance 408 for displaying notifications, affordance 410 for displaying contact information, affordance 412 for providing alerts, and affordance 414 for displaying settings. The specification therefore directly discloses a software application on the mobile device that is configured to present one or more affordances on a GUI.
The disclosed technology includes an application that performs tracking functions, making it a "tracker application." The specification discloses that the software application includes an affordance 404 specifically for "locating the container associated with the GUI 400." See Specification para. [0044]. Paragraph [0045] elaborates that this affordance "can be used to track the location of the container 204" and that "the wireless device can display a GUI including the location information of the container in response to a user input on the affordance 404." The application therefore performs a tracking function - it tracks the location of the medication dispenser. A person skilled in the art would understand that a software application that tracks the location of a device is reasonably characterized as a "tracker application."
The term "tracker application" is a descriptive term, not a term of art requiring a specific definition. The claim uses "tracker application" to describe a software application that performs tracking-related functions and presents affordances on a GUI. The specification discloses exactly such an application - one that tracks the dispenser's location, tracks medication compliance, and presents multiple affordances on a GUI for managing these tracking functions. A person skilled in the art would not understand "tracker application" to require any particular structure or feature beyond what the specification discloses.
The specification ties the application's affordances to the tracking and management workflow. The affordances disclosed in the specification are not generic UI elements - they are specifically designed for tracking and managing the medication dispenser. Affordance 404 tracks location (para. [0045]). Affordance 406 generates medication schedules (para. [0046]). Affordance 408 displays notifications about medication compliance (para. [0045]). Affordance 412 allows a caregiver to trigger an alert on the dispenser (para. [0044]). Each affordance serves a tracking or management function within the medication dispensing system. A person skilled in the art would understand that an application whose affordances are all oriented toward tracking and managing a medication dispenser constitutes a "tracker application that is configured to present one or more affordances on a GUI."
Fig. 4A, ref. 404 teaches “Find My Box” and para’s. [0044] - [0045] teach track and define affordance. Based on this, the section (9) rejection is withdrawn.
The remarks above are directed towards independent claim 18, but are generally applicable to the other independent claims. Given the remarks above, the Applicant respectfully asserts that the present claims comply with the written description requirement of Section 112(a). As such, the applicant respectfully requests that the present Section 112(a) rejection be withdrawn from the present independent claims, as well as the claims dependent thereon.
The Rejection (section (10)) was not addressed but is withdrawn based on further consideration of Fig. 4A, ref. 408 teaching notifications.
The Rejection (section (11)) was not addressed but based on further review is respectfully maintained as teachings cannot be found
In summary, most of the above arguments center around combining particular location with the dispenser performing various acts at particular times. There is no teaching of a particular location with specific dispenser acts. There is also no teaching as to why this would be done. The benefit of taking a medication (opening a lid) at a particular time is taught. There is no benefit of taking a medication at a particular location taught. A pill taken at 10:00 AM every day provides a physiological benefit. A pill taken in a house or outdoors does not provide any physiological benefit. Respectfully, the particular location does not matter, and that is probably why there is no teaching of this in the instant disclosure.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112(b) Rejections, starting pg. 20 of Remarks:
B. Response to the Section 112(b) Rejections
Claims 1-12, 14, and 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim 18, under Section 112(b), the Examiner identifies that the claims recite identifying two separate location data and then using that data, in part, to determine whether the lid of the of the respective compartment of the dispenser was opened at a particular location. The Examiner asserts that this construction is "indefinite as to determining a lid has been opened based on at a particular time at a particular location when there are first and second (two) locations." See Office Action pages 23-24.
The Rejection (section (13))…
“determining, by the server system based on the first sensor data, the first location data, and the second location data, whether the lid of the respective compartment has been opened during a particular time period at a particular location,”
The Applicant respectfully disagrees that this construction is indefinite. Rather, the Applicant contends that the identified claim language merely does not limit the location identification to the two locations at which location data is collected. For example, the "particular location" where the compartment was opened may be the first location or the second location. However, the particular location may be a location other than the first location or second location.
For example, the first sensor data may indicate that the lid was not opened at a time when the dispenser was at the first or second location. Rather, the first sensor data may indicate that the lid was opened at a time between when the dispenser was at the first or second location, which may lead the technology to determine that the lid was opened at a third location somewhere between the first and second location.
Respectfully, the claim recites determining whether a lid was opened based on sensor data (lid open) and first and second location data. Why are two locations required to determine if a lid is opened? First, there is no teaching of location information related to lid being opened. Even if there was teaching of this, why are two locations required to determine if a lid is opened, and at a particular location?
Regarding claim 6, under Section 112(b), the Examiner misquotes claim 6. As previously presented, claim 6 recites, in relevant part: "the server system is caused to send, based on the first sensor data, the first location data, and the second location data, instructions to the additional mobile device that cause the additional mobile device to perform an additional action." That is, based on received data, the server system is caused to send instructions to the additional mobile device. The Examiner asserts that it is indefinite to send instructions based on two locations. However, as claimed, the server system may send instructions based on data that, among other information, includes two locations. Many context may require a system to generate or send an instruction based on a collection of location data. For example, the present technology may use an indication that the user did not open the lid while in the first and second location to cause the server system to send an instruction to the user to consume a specific mediation (e.g., a notification so that the user does not forget to take their medicine).
The Rejection (section (14))…
“the server system is configured to be in communication with an additional mobile device, and the server system is caused to send, based on the first sensor data, the first location data and the second location data instructions to the additional mobile device that cause the additional mobile device to perform an additional action”
Sending instructions based on two locations is indefinite as to why this is done (e.g., what does two locations of a dispenser have to do with sending instructions?
As a result of the above remarks, the Applicant asserts that the present claims are not indefinite and are in condition for allowance. The Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests that the present Section 112(b) rejections be withdrawn.
The rejections are respectfully maintained based on the above response.
Dependent Claims
In view of the above remarks, a specific discussion of the dependent claims is unnecessary. Therefore, Applicant's silence regarding any dependent claim is not to be interpreted as agreement with, or acquiescence to, the rejection of such claim or as waiving any argument regarding that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites:
“determining, by the server system based on the first sensor data, the first location data, and the second location data, whether the lid of the respective compartment has been opened during a particular time period at a particular location,…”
No teaching can be found of determining based on first sensor, first location, and second location whether a lid has been opened at a particular location. The specification teaches lid opened during a particular time period but not at a particular location using first sensor and first and second locations.
From Applicant’s specification:
“In another example, a method for managing medication dispensing by a server system includes receiving sensor data from an electronic medication dispenser. The sensor data can be generated by one or more sensors of the electronic medication dispenser. The electronic medication dispenser can include multiple openable compartments for holding medicines. The sensor data can include first sensor data generated by a first sensor of the multiple sensors. The first sensor can detect the opening of a lid of a respective compartment of the multiple compartments of the electronic medication dispenser. The server system can determine whether the lid of the respective compartment has been opened during a particular time period based on the first sensor data. The respective compartment can be configured to hold medicines to be consumed by a user of the electronic medication dispenser during the particular time period. In response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period, the server system can cause a wireless device to output a notification indicating that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period.” [0015]
Also, regarding location. Applicant’s specification teaches:
“The GUI 400-1 can also include multiple affordances. An affordance refers to
an object displayed on a GUI that is associated with a particular operation and causes a computer system to perform the particular operation in response to a user interaction on the affordance (e.g., by a user input such as a tap, a swipe, or a press). The object can include a text, symbol, image, or space for entering user input (e.g., an affordance for entering a search term). Affordances enable convenient and intuitive ways for a user to operate a system via a GUI. The GUI 400-1 can include, for example, an affordance 404 for locating the container associated with the GUI 400, an affordance 406 for generating a schedule that indicates medication intake times, an affordance 408 for displaying notifications, an affordance 410 for displaying contact information, an affordance 412 for providing alerts, and an affordance 414 for displaying settings. For example, a user can grant their caretaker the ability to press the affordance 412 that triggers an output device (e.g., a buzzer) of the container 204 to alert the user. The caretaker can use this function to remind the user in an instance that the caretaker notices that the user has not taken his or her medication. As another example, the buzzer can be preset to automatically sound in an instance that the container 204 has not been opened at a scheduled medication time (after a configurable grace period). If a user is supposed to take a medication at 9:00am but for some reason misses the scheduled time, the buzzer would sound automatically at 9:30am to alert the user to take their medication (assuming the grace period is set to 30 minutes).” [0044]
The above teaches an “affordance” as operation in response to a user tap, swipe, or press. Also, an affordance for locating a container. Therefore, if a user taps the affordance, the location of the container can be found. The above also teaches time with buzzer to take medication. However, the above does not teach determining by a server using first sensor and first and second location data whether a lid has been opened at a particular time and at a particular location.
From Fig. 4A, ref. 404 and “Find My Box”…
PNG
media_image1.png
108
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“The affordance 404 can be used to track the location of the container 204 of the
system 200 (e.g., as described with respect to the processes in Figure 5). For example, the wireless device can display a GUI including the location information of the container in response to a user input on the affordance 404. In response to a user input on the affordance 406, the wireless device can display the GUI 400-2 illustrated in Figure 4B, and in response a user input on the affordance 410, the wireless device can display the GUI 400-3 illustrated in Figure 4C. In response to a user input on the affordance 408, the wireless device can display a GUI including notifications, and in response to a user input on the affordance 414, the wireless device can display a GUI including settings associated with the software application.” [0045]
The above teaches a wireless device can display a GUI including an affordance “Find My Box” that can be tapped. Tapping can happen at any time.
Therefore, a sensor can determine lid opened during a particular time period. Claim 1 has a similar problem.
Claim 18 recites:
“wherein the respective compartment is configured to hold medicines to be consumed by a user of the portable electronic medication dispenser during the particular time period at the particular location;”
No teaching of hold medicines at the particular location can be found in the written description. The specification only teaches hold medicines during a particular time period.
From Applicant’s specification:
“In another example, a method for managing medication dispensing by a server system includes receiving sensor data from an electronic medication dispenser. The sensor data can be generated by one or more sensors of the electronic medication dispenser. The electronic medication dispenser can include multiple openable compartments for holding medicines. The sensor data can include first sensor data generated by a first sensor of the multiple sensors. The first sensor can detect the opening of a lid of a respective compartment of the multiple compartments of the electronic medication dispenser. The server system can determine whether the lid of the respective compartment has been opened during a particular time period based on the first sensor data. The respective compartment can be configured to hold medicines to be consumed by a user of the electronic medication dispenser during the particular time period. In response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period, the server system can cause a wireless device to output a notification indicating that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period.” [0015]
Therefore, only during a particular time period is taught. Claim 1 has a similar problem.
Claim 18 recites:
“in response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period at the particular location,”
No teaching of in response to determination that lid has not been opened at the particular location can be found in the written description. The specification teaches a particular time period.
From Applicant’s Specification:
“In another example, a method for managing medication dispensing by a server system includes receiving sensor data from an electronic medication dispenser. The sensor data can be generated by one or more sensors of the electronic medication dispenser. The electronic medication dispenser can include multiple openable compartments for holding medicines. The sensor data can include first sensor data generated by a first sensor of the multiple sensors. The first sensor can detect the opening of a lid of a respective compartment of the multiple compartments of the electronic medication dispenser. The server system can determine whether the lid of the respective compartment has been opened during a particular time period based on the first sensor data. The respective compartment can be configured to hold medicines to be consumed by a user of the electronic medication dispenser during the particular time period. In response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period, the server system can cause a wireless device to output a notification indicating that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period.” [0015]
Therefore, only a particular time period is taught. Claim 1 has a similar problem.
Claim 18 recites:
“generating, by the server system, a notification indicating that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period at the particular location,”
No teaching of generating a notification at a particular location can be found in the disclosure. The specification only teaches during a notification with particular time period or temperature.
From Applicant’s Specification:
“In another example, a method for managing medication dispensing by a server system includes receiving sensor data from an electronic medication dispenser. The sensor data can be generated by one or more sensors of the electronic medication dispenser. The electronic medication dispenser can include multiple openable compartments for holding medicines. The sensor data can include first sensor data generated by a first sensor of the multiple sensors. The first sensor can detect the opening of a lid of a respective compartment of the multiple compartments of the electronic medication dispenser. The server system can determine whether the lid of the respective compartment has been opened during a particular time period based on the first sensor data. The respective compartment can be configured to hold medicines to be consumed by a user of the electronic medication dispenser during the particular time period. In response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period, the server system can cause a wireless device to output a notification indicating that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period.” [0015]
Therefore, only not opened during a particular time period. Claim 1 has a similar problem.
Claim 18 recites:
“wherein the portable electronic medication dispenser is within a threshold distance of a mobile device associated with the portable electronic medication dispenser at the first location, the threshold distance corresponding to a distance of a short-range wireless technology standard,”
and…
“wherein the portable electronic medication dispenser is not within the threshold distance of the mobile device at the second location;…”
There is no teaching of threshold distance corresponding to short-range wireless technology standard or threshold distance in the specification.
From the only teaching on distance in the specification…
“In some implementations, the sensor data includes location data generated by a location tracker of the medication dispenser. The server system can determine a location of the medication dispenser based on the location data. The location data can include GPS tracking data generated by a GPS tracker of the medication dispenser. The location data can also include location data generated based on base stations (e.g., the base stations 102-1 through 102-4 in FIG. 1). For example, the medication dispenser is in communication with one or more base stations. The location data can include distance information from one or more of the base stations that the medication dispenser is communicating with. For example, the tracking can be based on multilateration (e.g., triangulation) of radio signals between multiple signal sources (e.g., the base stations or Wi-Fi access points) and the medication dispenser.” [0060]
Therefore, no teaching of threshold distance. Claim 1 has a similar problem.
Claim 6 recites “the server system is configured to be in communication with an additional mobile device, and the server system is caused to send, based on the first sensor data, the first location data and the second location data instructions to the additional mobile device that cause the additional mobile device to perform an additional action” where no teaching of send instructions based on first and second location can be found in the specification.
From Applicant’s specification…
“At 508, in response to a determination that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period, the server system can cause the wireless device to output a notification (e.g., a message) indicating that the lid of the respective compartment has not been opened during the particular time period. For example, the server system sends instructions or an indication to the wireless device that allows a software application of the wireless device to output a notification. The notification could be an audio or a visual message (e.g., displayed on the GUI 400 described with respect to FIGS. 4A-4C). The notification can include a reminder or an alert. For example, the wireless device can be associated with the patient and the patient has forgotten to take his or her medication, based on the first sensor data. The notification can remind the patient to take the medication. Alternatively, the wireless device can be associated with a caregiver (e.g., a healthcare professional, a family member, or a friend) of the patient. The notification can operate as an alert to notify the caregiver that the patient has not taken his or her medication.” [0054]
Therefore, notification based on time period, not location.
Claims 2-4, 6-12, 19, and 20 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claims.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 18-20 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.
Claim 18 recites…
“receiving, from the portable electronic medication dispenser, a first location data,
wherein the first location data includes distance information from one or more base stations of a telecommunications network with which the portable electronic medication dispenser is connected;
determining, based on the first location data, a first location of the portable electronic medication dispenser,”
“receiving, from the portable electronic medication dispenser, a second location data,
wherein the second location data is Global Positioning System (GPS) data from a second sensor of the one or more sensors:
determining, based on the second location data, a second location of the portable electronic medication dispenser”
Therefore, the dispenser has two different locations, first and second locations.
Claim 18 also recites…
“determining, by the server system based on the first sensor data, the first location data, and the second location data, whether the lid of the respective compartment has been opened during a particular time period at a particular location,”
It is indefinite as to determining a lid has been opened based on at a particular time at a particular location when there are first and second (two) locations. Claim 1 has a similar problem of using first and second locations.
Claim 6 recites “the server system is configured to be in communication with an additional mobile device, and the server system is caused to send, based on the first sensor data, the first location data and the second location data instructions to the additional mobile device that cause the additional mobile device to perform an additional action” where it is indefinite as to send instructions based on two locations. For examination purposes this is interpreted as based on sensor data.
Claims 2-4, 6-12, 19, and 20 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claims.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art Analysis
Based on further search and consideration, the prior art rejection is withdrawn. The prior art of Rufo (Patent No. US 11581099) teaches smart medication cabinet with a plurality of sensors. However, Rufo fails to teach first and second sensor with first and second location, where the location is based on a proximate mobile device and a distant mobile device using GPS.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights