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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16 Applicant discloses, “a wheel” on line 2 and in claim 10, from which claim 16 depends, Applicant discloses, “a wheel” on line 6. Are these different components? It is not clear from the disclosure of claims 10, 15, and 16 whether these are different components and thus claim is ambiguous.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-17 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Luoma et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0066463).
Regarding claim 1, Luoma et al. disclose an adherence package comprising:
a housing (50,110,120,124);
a wheel (170,180) rotatably engaged with the housing and configured to contact a strand of medication pouches (35) stored in the housing such that the wheel rotates relative to the housing as the strand of medication pouches (35) moves between the housing and the wheel (see paragraph [0061]); and
a sensor (119 or 119,128) supported in the housing (see Figure 4B), the sensor being configured to detect movement (see paragraph [0067]) of the wheel (170) as the strand of medication pouches (35) is pulled from the housing (see paragraphs [0029], [0056], [0060], and Figures 2C, 4D, and 5B).
Regarding claim 2, Luoma et al. disclose the adherence package of claim 1, wherein the sensor (119) is rotatably supported (136) in the housing (see paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 3, Luoma et al. disclose the adherence package of claim 1, wherein the sensor (119) is mounted in a carriage assembly (110,112).
Regarding claim 4, Luoma et al. disclose the adherence package of claim 3, wherein the carriage (110 or 110,112) assembly is rotatably (see “136” in paragraph [0058]) and slidably mounted (see “150” in paragraph [0060]) in the housing (see Figures 4B, 4E, and 6B).
Regarding claim 5, Luoma et al. disclose the adherence package of claim 4, wherein the housing includes a guide wall (80) defining a guide groove (see Figures 2C and 6B), the carriage assembly (110,112) rides in the guide groove (see Figure 6B), and the guide wall (80) limits sliding movement of the carriage assembly (see the pressure from the child lock on “150” in Figure 6B, along with paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Luoma et al. disclose the adherence package of claim 1, wherein the sensor (119) is mounted in a frame (110).
Regarding claim 7, Luoma et al. disclose the adherence package of claim 6, wherein the frame (110) is slidably mounted (150) in the housing (see paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Luoma et al. disclose the adherence package of claim 7, wherein the housing defines a groove (see Figures 2C and 6B), a guide rail (150) extends from the frame (110), and the guide rail (150) is slidably received by the groove (see Figures 6B and paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Luoma et al. disclose the adherence package of claim 7, wherein the housing has a lip (80) and a stop (50) and the frame engages the lip and the stop (see Figure 6B).
Regarding claim 10, Luoma et al. disclose a medication dispensing system comprising:
a computing device (see paragraphs [0080], [0087] and [0089]); and
an adherence package (100) in communication with the computing device via a cloud network (see Figure 14), the adherence package including
a housing (50,110,120,124),
a wheel (170 or 170,180) rotatably engaged with the housing and configured to contact a strand of medication pouches (35) stored in the housing such that the wheel rotates relative to the housing as the strand of medication pouches (35) moves between the housing and the wheel (see paragraph [0061]), and
a sensor (119 or 119,128 or 119,128,630) supported in the housing, the sensor being configured to detect movement (see paragraph [0067]) of the wheel as the strand of medication pouches (35) is pulled from the housing (see paragraphs [0029], [0056], [0060], and Figures 2C, 4D, and 5B).
Regarding claim 11, Luoma et al. disclose the medication dispensing system of claim 10, wherein the sensor (119,128,630) sends motion data of the strand to the computing device (see paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 12, Luoma et al. disclose the medication dispensing system of claim 11, wherein the computing device determines a motion event based on the motion data (see paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 13, Luoma et al. disclose the medication dispensing system of claim 11, wherein the computing device determines whether a medication dose from the strand has been dispensed in accordance with a predetermined medication schedule (see paragraph [0014]) based on the motion data (see paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 15, Luoma et al. disclose the medication dispensing system of claim 10, wherein the sensor (119) is mounted in a carriage assembly (110) and the carriage assembly is rotatably (see “136” in paragraph [0058]) and slidably mounted (see “150” in paragraph [0060]) in the housing (see Figures 4B, 4E, and 6B).
Regarding claim 16 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Luoma et al. disclose the medication dispensing system of claim 15, wherein the carriage assembly (110,150) includes a wheel (170) and the carriage assembly rotates when the strand (35) is pulled against the wheel (see paragraphs [0029], [0056], [0060], and Figures 2C, 4D, and 5B).
Regarding claim 17, Luoma et al. disclose the medication dispensing system of claim 15, wherein the housing includes a guide wall (80) defining a guide groove (see Figures 2C and 6B), the carriage assembly (110,150) rides in the guide groove (see Figure 6B), and the guide wall (80) limits sliding movement of the carriage assembly (see the pressure from the child lock on “150” in Figure 6B, along with paragraph [0060]).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luoma et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0066463) as applied to claims 1-13 and 15-17 above, and further in view of Bossi et al. (USPGPUB 2007/0185615).
Regarding claim 14, Luoma et al. disclose the medication dispensing system of claim 11. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the computing device is in communication with a mobile device via the cloud network and the computing device sends medication reminders to the mobile device. Bossi et al. disclose a system wherein the computing device is in communication with a mobile device via the cloud network and the computing device sends medication reminders to the mobile device (see paragraph [0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Luoma et al. by including a system wherein the computing device is in communication with a mobile device via the cloud network and the computing device sends medication reminders to the mobile device, as disclosed by Bossi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing alerts to a device carried by a patient (see paragraph [0089]).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bossi et al. (USPGPUB 2007/0185615) and further in view of Luoma et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0066463).
Regarding claim 18, Bossi et al. disclose a method for dispensing medication comprising:
determining, with a computing device (see “the controller” in paragraph [0124]), whether a strand (see Figure 15) of medication pouches (27 or 26) has moved in an adherence package (33) close to a dose time;
if the strand of medication pouches has not moved in the adherence package (33) close to the dose time, determining, with the computing device, whether a maximum number of reminders has been sent to a mobile device in communication with the computing device (see paragraph [0124]); and
if the maximum number of reminders has not yet been sent to the mobile device, sending, with the computing device (see paragraph [0124]), a reminder to the mobile device (see paragraph [0089]).
However, they do not disclose a method comprising a sensor, the sensor being configured to detect movement of a wheel contacting the strand of medication pouches as the strand of medication pouches is pulled along the wheel to rotate the wheel. Luoma et al. disclose a method comprising a sensor (119 or 119,128 or 119,128,630), the sensor being configured to detect movement (see paragraph [0067]) of a wheel (170 or 170,180) contacting the strand of medication pouches as the strand of medication pouches (35) is pulled along the wheel to rotate the wheel (see paragraphs [0029], [0056], [0060]-[0061], and Figures 2C, 4D, and 5B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Luoma et al. by including a method comprising a sensor, the sensor being configured to detect movement of a wheel contacting the strand of medication pouches as the strand of medication pouches is pulled along the wheel to rotate the wheel, as disclosed by Luoma et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing controlled motion for unit dose packages (see paragraph [0067]) which are driven by drive rollers (see paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 19, Bossi et al. disclose the method of claim 18, further comprising determining, with the computing device, whether the strand of medication pouches has moved in the adherence package during a waiting period after the reminder is sent (see paragraphs [0124] and [0130]).
Regarding claim 20, Bossi et al. disclose the method of claim 18, wherein the computing device is a first computing device and further comprising, if the maximum number of reminders has already been sent to the mobile device, contacting, with the first computing device, a second computing device of a health professional (see paragraph [0137]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 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.
M.K.C.
9/11/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights