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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerrero-Ulloa et al (“Ulloa”)(NPL No. 2 of IDS submitted 9/08/2023, “IoT-Based Smart Medicine Dispenser…”) in view of Moore (US 5,291,191).
Ulloa teaches a dispensing system and method comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a plurality of compartments configured to store medicines associated with a patient (fig. 4 and p. 8-9 teaching dispenser configured with vertical compartments for storing medicine to be dispenses to medicine boxes); and
a medicine management unit communicatively coupled to the plurality of compartments, wherein the medicine management unit comprises:
a transceiver configured to receive a medicine delivery schedule associated with the patient (fig. 2 showing medicines and delivery schedule and fig. 3 showing controller components for receiving delivery schedule; p. 6-8 teaching that patient/caregiver can enter medicine delivery schedule through mobile app and that dispenser configured to function via local and cloud computing to identify and dispense medicine, thus a transmitting-receiving module is inherent); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain the medicine delivery schedule from the transceiver (Id.);
identify a medicine and a medicine delivery time based on the medicine delivery schedule (Id.);
output a notification at the medicine delivery time to indicate to the patient to collect the medicine (Id. teaching notification via LCD screen or mobile device);
determine that the patient is in proximity to a dispensing system front portion responsive to outputting the notification (fig. 3 showing camera and sensor linked with controller; p. 6-7 teaching use of passive infrared sensor to determine proximity and then to activate camera for facial authentication); and
cause a compartment, of the plurality of compartments, to dispense a medicine to enable the patient to take the medicine responsive to determining that the patient is in proximity to the dispensing system front portion (p. 6-7 teaching that physical layer includes actuators/servomotors to dispense medicine boxes through compartments after proximity detection);
(re: certain elements of claim 3) a memory configured to store a mapping of a plurality of medicines with the plurality of compartments (p. 7-9 teaching local and cloud layer having storage capabilities to perform dispensing steps from dispenser compartments, wherein a “mapping” and fetching said mapping and selecting a compartment is inherent from teaching/capability to assign a patient a specific compartment to store medicines and to dispense a specific medicine from the specific compartment based on a medicine delivery schedule), and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
fetch the mapping from the memory (Id.);
select the compartment from the plurality of compartments based on the mapping, wherein the compartment stores the medicine (Id.); and
cause the compartment to dispense a medicine responsive to selecting the compartment;
(re: claim 4) wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain patient images responsive to the determination that the patient is in proximity to the dispensing system front portion (p. 6-7 teaching use of passive infrared sensor to determine proximity and then to activate camera for facial authentication);
perform patient authentication based on the patient images (Id.); and
cause the compartment to move from the closed position to the open position when the patient is authenticated (Id. teaching dispensing of medicines through one of dispenser compartments after authentication);
(re: claim 5) wherein the processor outputs the notification by outputting an audible signal (p. 7-8 teaching mobile application to provide notifications as well as dispenser notifications via LED lights and sounds);
(re: claim 6) wherein the processor further outputs the notification by activating lights associated with the compartment in a predetermined pattern (p. 6 teaching activating light associated with compartment when medicine box is dispensed).
(re: claims 15-20) The combined device described below performs the claimed method steps and related instructions (fig. 1 and 3; p. 5-8 teaching processing elements and software code having instructions in a distributed computing system, i.e., cloud and local layers, to dispense medicine).
Ulloa as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 3) wherein the processor is configured to:
cause a compartment, of the plurality of compartments, to move from a closed position to an open position to dispense a medicine;
(re: claim 2) wherein the compartment is disposed in a dispensing system interior portion in the closed position,
wherein the compartment is at least partially disposed out of the dispensing system interior portion in the open position, and
wherein the processor causes the compartment to move from the closed position to the open position by causing the compartment to slide out from the dispensing system interior portion.
Moore, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated dispensing arts to combine automated compartments with notification means that include medicine instructions to allow medicines to be safely dispensed to as well as taken by people with visual impairments (fig. 1 showing dispenser with automated compartments 15, 33,19, 25, 29, 35, 23,31, 36 in cabinet interior caused to slide/move from a closed to an open position in fig. 2 and 3; col. 4, ln. 1-col. 5, ln. 25 and col. 7, ln. 8-col. 9, ln. 9 and col. 11, ln. 35-53 teaching each compartment configured as slidable drawer with locking means to prevent access in a closed position and actuating means that causes compartment to slide to open position to safely dispense medicine).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (i.e., automated compartment) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences).
Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ulloa for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulloa and Moore (“Ulloa et al.”) in view of as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Bear et al. (“Bear”)(US 2008/0119958) and Aon et al. (“Aon”)(US 2020/0345587).
Ulloa et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 7) wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain a pre-stored video; and
cause to display the pre-stored video on a dispensing system user interface to enable the patient to take the medicine;
(re: claim 8) an inertial measurement unit, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain inputs from the inertial measurement unit;
determine that the patient has moved the compartment from the open position to the closed position based on the inputs obtained from the inertial measurement unit; and
determine that the patient has taken the medicine based on a determination that the patient has moved the compartment from the open position to the closed position;
(re: claim 9) wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine that the patient has not taken the medicine based on a determination that the patient has not moved the compartment from the open position to the closed position; and
transmit a notification to a caregiver user device to indicate that the patient has not taken the medicine;
(re: claim 10) wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive inputs from the caregiver user device; and
output a second notification responsive to receiving the inputs from the caregiver user device.
Bear, however, teaches that it is well-known to configure-
(re: claim 7)
-the dispenser to provide video instructions for taking the medication as part of a medicine notification to encourage and shape compliance behavior (fig. 4 and para. 45).
Aon further teaches that it is well-known in the dispensing arts to configure the dispensing system and processor therein:
(re: claims 8 and 9)
-to integrate an inertial sensor into a dispensing compartment to ensure adherence to a medication schedule and to notify a caregiver of any lapses (fig. 3 and para. 36, 44-45, 177-182, 189 teaching medicine dispenser configured with sensors, such as audio, video/infrared cameras, accelerometer, magnetometer and/or GPS module, to detect whether compartment has been opened and closed, wherein compliance alerts can be given to mobile applications of patients and caregiver based on sensor data).
(re: claim 10)
-to configure the processor to receive inputs from a caregiver device and to allow real-time communication/notifications/reminders to encourage continued adherence to a medication schedule (para. 8, 66, 99, 140, 214 teaching that caregiver is notified via mobile app regarding missed medications, and can intervene as necessary on a real-time basis, wherein pill dispenser is configured with video screen and cellular modem interface to allow video, phone and messaging between caregiver and patient, e.g., a “missed goal may be greeted by further encouragement such that the patient would try his/her best to adhere to the medication regime”)
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the dispensing arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ulloa et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulloa and Moore (“Ulloa et al.”) in view of as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Badik et al. (“Badik”)(US 11,715,340)
Ulloa et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 11) a temperature unit configured to control temperature of one or more compartments from the plurality of compartments;
(re: claim 12) wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain desired temperature of the one or more compartments; and
transmit an instruction to the temperature unit to control temperature of the one or more compartments based on the desired temperature;
(re: claim 13) wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain a current temperature of the one or more compartments; and
cause to display the current temperature on respective compartment display screens responsive to obtaining the current temperature;
(re: claim 14) wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify a medicine dose based on the medical delivery schedule; and
output the notification based on the identification of the medicine dose, wherein the notification indicates the medicine dose to be taken by the patient.
Badik, however, teaches that it is well-known in the dispensing arts to configure a processor:
(re: claims 11-13)
-to sense physical conditions of a compartment, such as temperature, pressure and humidity, and adjust said conditions to ensure proper storage of said medicines (fig. 2G near sensor 209; col. 36, ln. 42-63 teaching processor configured to monitor and to provide display alerts on a user interface relating to parameters, such as temperature, and to instruct cooling and humidity system to maintain pre-set limits); and
(re: claim 14)
-to identify a medicine based on a delivery schedule and provide instructions to the patient regarding the correct dosing to ensure the medicine is taken correctly (col. 35, ln. 58-col. 36, ln. 43).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the dispensing arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above, in legal precedent as described above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., temperature sensor and related processor commands) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ulloa et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
May 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights