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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 11/11/2025. The objections to the Specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejection of claim 8 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejection of claim 9 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the remarks filed. Claims18-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new. Accordingly, claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 2-5, 7-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greyshock (US20180297785A1) in view of Vaccaro et al. (US20220391833A1), Kimura et al. (Kimura, N., et al. Mobile dual-arm robot for automated order picking system in warehouse containing various kinds of products, December 2015, 2015 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII), pp. 332-338, [retrieved on 06 August 2025]. Retrieved from Internet <DOI: 10.1109/SII.2015.7404942>) and Glass et al. (US20240174446A1).
Regarding Claim 1, A temperature-controlled medication packaging system [where temperature sensitive medication is transported between refrigerated storage with cooling-packs; 0239-0241], comprising:
a storage including a temperature-controlled interior containing at least one medication [where temperature sensitive medication may be outside of refrigerated storage transporting between the central pharmacy and the unit storage device, implying refrigerated storage at the central and unit storage; 0239] that is disposed within a shipping box [Figure 6; 0095];
at least one shipping container [overpacks or packaging encases or holds medications or supplies; 0086] in a packager [where pharmacy automation tools, such as an automated dispensing system, may be configured to package and dispense medications and supplies in such overpacks, such that manual packaging of the medications or supplies into overpacks may not be required; 0093];
at least one coolant that is sized to fit within the at least one shipping container [where each overpack may contain a cold-pack configured to keep temperature below a threshold value; 0241]; and
at least one robot adapted to retrieve the at least one medication from the storage and transport the at least one medication to the shipping container in the packager [where embodiments of the present invention may also be used with existing automated pharmacy dispensing systems, such as Robot-Rx™ from McKesson® which may distribute medications from an inventory to an overpack for transport, Figure 6; 0095].
Greyshock does not explicitly teach where the medication is disposed within a shipping box where at least one robot is adapted to retrieve medication directly from the shipping box.
However, Kimura teaches an automated order picking system including a robot for warehouses that contain various kinds of products [Abstract] where at least one product is disposed within a shipping box [where products arrive to the warehouse in cartons, Figure 1 (b); p. 333, left col, para. 2] and where at least one robot is adapted to retrieve the product directly from the shipping box [where a robot pulls out the case from a shelf of cases before picking up the products and places them in cartons for transport, Figure 1 (b) and Figure 11; p. 333, left col, para. 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, a box picking operation, to a known device, a temperature-controlled medication packaging system, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., completely automating order picking operations by ensuring access to products by robots.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Greyshock to have where at least one robot is adapted to retrieve medication directly from the shipping box in view of the teachings of Kimura where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., completely automating order picking operations by ensuring access to products by robots.
Greyshock also does not teach where the at least one robot adapted to retrieve the at least one coolant and to transport the at least one coolant to the shipping container in the packager and wherein the at least one robot is adapted to automatically select the at least one coolant.
However, Vaccaro teaches an automated assembly line for packaging perishable goods having thermal sensitivity [0003] where at least one robot [where conventional robot arm systems may be used for any or more of the stations such as picker/placer 41 or cold pack dispenser 40, Figure; 0028] is adapted to retrieve the at least one coolant and to transport the at least one coolant to the shipping container [where a robotic arm system may be used to pick cold packs from a cooler and place them into the carton 12, Figure; 0040] in the packager [where stations process or manipulate shipping carton 12 after assembly prior to transport; 0043] wherein the at least one robot is adapted to automatically select the at least one coolant [0028;0040] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., optimally packing temperature sensitive material to extend the shelf life of the shipment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Greyshock to have where the at least one robot is adapted to retrieve the at least one coolant and to transport the at least one coolant to the shipping container in the packager in view of the teachings of Vaccaro where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., optimally packing temperature sensitive material to extend the shelf life of the shipment.
Greyshock does not teach where the storage including an environmental barrier between the shipping box and the at least one robot and wherein the at least one robot is adapted to reach through the environmental barrier.
However, Glass teaches a storage system and method for managing a warehouse having robots of different types [0004] where the storage includes an environmental barrier between the shipping box and the at least one robot [where refrigerators accommodate the storage temperature of stored items and would be closed with a pulsed air curtain; 0132] and wherein the at least one robot is adapted to reach through the environmental barrier [which effectively let instances, such as robots, retrieve boxes from the shelving location; 0132] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, applying an air curtain, to a known device, refrigerated storage, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., reducing damage to robots by minimizing exposure to temperature differences where moving the entire robot between different temperature environments frequently is harmful [Glass; 0132]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have including an environmental barrier between the shipping box and the at least one robot and wherein the at least one robot is adapted to reach through the environmental barrier in view of the teachings of Glass where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., reducing damage to robots by minimizing exposure to temperature differences where moving the entire robot between different temperature environments frequently is harmful [Glass; 0132]
Claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: to maintain the at least one medication in a temperature range during shipping to an intended destination. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 2, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the shipping box has an open top [Figure 6 of Greyshock and see Kimura as applied to the rejection of Claim 1] and wherein the at least one robot includes a first robot that is adapted to remove the at least one medication from the shipping box through the open top [see Kimura as applied to the rejection of Claim 1].
Regarding Claim 3, Greyshock teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the storage that includes the shipping box is held at a temperature that is no greater than forty degrees Fahrenheit.
However, Glass teaches a storage system and method for managing a warehouse having robots of different types [0004] where the storage that includes the shipping box is held at a temperature that is no greater than forty degrees Fahrenheit [where refrigerated items depending on local regulations are usually between 0° C to 4° C, 32 °F to 39.2 °F; 0125] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, refrigerating, to a known device, storage, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., maintaining goods at a temperature required by local regulations [Glass;0125]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the storage that includes the shipping box is held at a temperature that is no greater than forty degrees Fahrenheit in view of the teachings of Glass where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., maintaining goods at a temperature required by local regulations [Glass;0125]
Regarding Claim 4, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention as described above and further teaches wherein the environmental barrier includes a curtain [an air curtain as taught by Glass, refer to the rejection of claim 1 applied above] and wherein the at least one robot includes a first robot that can penetrate through the curtain when retrieving the at least one medication directly from the shipping box [refer to Glass as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above] and wherein the storage is maintained at a temperature that is in the range of 32 degrees Fahrenheit to 46 degrees Fahrenheit [refer to Glass as applied to the rejection of claim 3 above].
Regarding Claim 5, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 and further teaches where the storage includes a plurality of shipping boxes that are disposed on at least one platform, and wherein the plurality of shipping boxes has open tops [refer to Kimura as applied to the rejection of Claim 1].
Regarding Claim 7, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further where the shipping container [overpacks or packaging encases or holds medications or supplies; 0086] is an insulated bag [where the overpack may be an envelope or bag; 0093; where an overpack may be insulated; 0241] that acts as a moisture barrier between an environment outside the shipping container and an inside of the shipping container [where the overpack would benefit from a heat-sealed closure for contents that should not be exposed to humidity or moisture; 0089] that can contain the at least one medication and the at least one coolant [where overpacks may contain a cold-pack to extend the shelf-life of the medication outside of refrigerated storage; 0241].
Claim 7 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “…that acts as a moisture barrier between an environment outside the shipping container and an inside of the shipping container” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 8, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the at least one robot includes a first robot that is adapted to retrieve the at least one medication directly from the shipping box and deliver the at least one medication to the shipping container in the package [refer to Greyshock Figure 6 as modified by Kimura in the rejection of claim 1 above] and the shipping container includes the at least one coolant [cold pack; 0239] and a filler [where the overpack is insulated;0238] and a temperature sensor [temperature monitoring capabilities such as a temperature monitoring strip; 0238] and paperwork [where a label may be printed for the overpack; 0097] and does not teach a second robot that is adapted to retrieve and deliver to the shipping container the at least one coolant and a filler and a temperature sensor and paperwork.
However, Vaccaro teaches an automated assembly line for packaging perishable goods having thermal sensitivity [0003] where a second robot [where conventional robot arm systems may be used for any or more of the stations such as picker/placer 41 or cold pack dispenser 40, Figure 1; 0028] is adapted to retrieve and deliver to the shipping container [carton 12, Figure 1] the at least one coolant [cold pack dispenser 40, Figure 1], a filler [where stations include a liner dispenser 45, Figure 1; 0028], a temperature sensor [item picker/placer 41 for filling carton 12 with shipping goods; 0028] and paperwork [labeler 42, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, an automated assembly line, to a known device, a packaging system, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., efficiently packaging a variety of packing configurations with an automated assembly line [Vaccaro, 0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Greyshock to have where a second robot is adapted to retrieve and deliver to the shipping container the at least one coolant and a filler and a temperature sensor and paperwork in view of the teachings of Vaccaro where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., efficiently packaging a variety of packing configurations with an automated assembly line [Vaccaro, 0020]
Regarding Claim 9, Greyshock teaches a method of filling a shipping container with a medication [where overpacks are used to encase medications or supplies with a with varying shapes, sizes, and handling requirements; 0086], containing the steps of:
with at least one robot [where embodiments of the present invention may also be used with existing automated pharmacy dispensing systems, which may distribute medications from an inventory to an overpack before transport, Figure 6; 0095], picking at least one medication [where a robot 164 loads overpack bins 160 with supply 166 with Figure 6; 0095] located within an environmentally controlled storage [where temperature sensitive medication may be outside of refrigerated storage transporting from the inventory of the central pharmacy to the unit storage device, implying refrigerated storage at the central and unit storage; 0239] ;
delivering the at least one medication to a packager that includes at least one shipping container [where overpacks encases or holds medications or supplies; 0086] with at least one robot [where pharmacy automation tools, such as an automated dispensing system, may be configured to package medications and supplies in such overpacks, such that manual packaging of the medications or supplies into overpacks may not be required; 0093];
Greyshock does not explicitly teach picking medication directly from the shipping box in Figure 6.
However, Kimura teaches an automated order picking system including a robot for warehouses that contain various kinds of products [Abstract] where at least one product is disposed within a shipping box [where products arrive to the warehouse in cartons, Figure 1 (b); p. 333, left col, para. 2] and where at least one robot is adapted to retrieve the product directly from the shipping box [where a robot pulls out the carton from a shelf of cases before picking up the products and places them in different cartons for transport, Figure 1 (b) and Figure 11; p. 333, left col, para. 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, a shipping box picking operation, to a known device, a temperature-controlled medication packaging system, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., completely automating order picking operations by ensuring access to products by robots.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Greyshock to teach picking medication directly from a shipping box in view of the teachings of Kimura where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., completely automating order picking operations by ensuring access to products by robots.
Greyshock also does not teach the step of automatically selecting at least one coolant from a coolant supply and picking the at least one coolant from the coolant supply and delivering the at least one coolant to the packager with the at least one robot.
However, Vaccaro teaches an automated assembly line for packaging perishable goods having thermal sensitivity [0003] including automatically selecting at least one coolant from a coolant supply [where a robotic arm system may be used to pick cold packs from a cooler and place them into the carton 12, Figure; 0040] and picking the at least one coolant from the coolant supply [where the robotic arm picks cold packs from a cooler; 0040] and delivering the at least one coolant to the packager [where stations process or manipulate shipping carton 12 after assembly prior to transport; 0043] with the at least one robot [0040] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., optimally packing temperature sensitive material to extend the shelf life of the shipment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Greyshock to have picking at least one coolant from a coolant supply and delivering the at least one coolant to the packager with the at least one robot in view of the teachings of Vaccaro where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., optimally packing temperature sensitive material to extend the shelf life of the shipment.
Greyshock does not teach the step of reaching through an environmental barrier that separates the at least one robot from a shipping box.
However, Glass teaches a storage system and method for managing a warehouse having robots of different types [0004] including reaching through an environmental barrier that separates the at least one robot from a shipping box [where refrigerators accommodate the storage temperature of stored items and would be closed with a pulsed air curtain which effectively let instances, such as robots, retrieve boxes from the shelving location; 0132] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, applying an air curtain, to a known device, refrigerated storage, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., reducing damage to robots by minimizing exposure to temperature differences where moving the entire robot between different temperature environments frequently is harmful [Glass; 0132]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have an environmental barrier that separates the at least one robot from a shipping box in view of the teachings of Glass where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., reducing damage to robots by minimizing exposure to temperature differences where moving the entire robot between different temperature environments frequently is harmful [Glass; 0132]
Further Regarding Claim 9, the claim language “in order to maintain the at least one medication in a temperature range during shipping to an intended destination“ does not require the prior art to perform an additional method step nor does it require additional structure. Therefore, the claimed properties of the coolant are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 10, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and does not teach the step of picking and delivering at least one of a filler, a temperature sensor, and paperwork to the packager with the at least one robot.
However, Vaccaro teaches an automated assembly line for packaging perishable goods having thermal sensitivity [0003] including the step of picking and delivering at least one of a filler [where after item picker/placer 41 stations include a liner dispenser 45; 0028] to the packager [where stations process or manipulate shipping carton 12 after assembly prior to transport; 0043; where automated apparatus 10 for configuring and producing packaging includes at least case erector-sealer 43; 0048] with the at least one robot [where conventional robot arm systems may be used for any one or more of the stations, Figure 1; 0028] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., efficiently packaging a variety of packing configurations with an automated assembly line [Vaccaro, 0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Greyshock to have where the step of picking and delivering at least one of a filler, a temperature sensor, and paperwork to the packager with the at least one robot in view of the teachings of Vaccaro where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., efficiently packaging a variety of packing configurations with an automated assembly line [Vaccaro, 0020]
Regarding Claim 11, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and further teaches wherein the first robot performs the steps of picking the at least one medication from the shipping container and delivering the at least one medication to the packager [refer to Greyshock as modified in the rejection of Claim 10] and the shipping container includes a filler [where the overpack is insulated;0238] and a temperature sensor [temperature monitoring capabilities such as a temperature monitoring strip; 0238] and paperwork [where a label may be printed for the overpack; 0097] but does not teach, wherein the at least one robot includes a first robot and a second robot, wherein the second robot performs the steps of picking and delivering all of the at least one of the filler, the temperature sensor, and the paperwork to the packager.
However, Vaccaro teaches an automated assembly line for packaging perishable goods having thermal sensitivity [0003] wherein the at least one robot includes a first robot and a second robot [where conventional robot arm systems may be used for any or more of the stations such as picker/placer 41, Figure 1; 0028], wherein the second robot performs the steps of picking and delivering all of the at least one of the filler [liner dispenser 45, Figure 1], the temperature sensor [picker/placer 41 for filling the carton 12 with shipping goods, Figure 1; 0028], and the paperwork [where stations include a liner dispenser 45, Figure 1; 0028] to the packager [carton 12, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, assembly line automation, to a known device, a method of filling a shipping container, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., efficiently packaging a variety of packing configurations with an automated assembly line [Vaccaro, 0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Greyshock to have wherein the at least one robot includes a first robot and a second robot, wherein the second robot performs the steps of picking and delivering all of the at least one of the filler, the temperature sensor, and the paperwork to the packager in view of the teachings of Vaccaro where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., efficiently packaging a variety of packing configurations with an automated assembly line [Vaccaro, 0020]
Regarding Claim 12, Greyshock, as modified teaches the invention of claim 9, and further teaches where the shipping box has an open top [Figure 6], where the at least one robot picks the at least one medication from the shipping box through the open top [refer to Kimura as applied to the rejection of Claim 9].
Regarding Claim 13, Greyshock, as modified teaches the invention of claim 9, and does not teach where the step of maintaining the environmentally controlled storage at a temperature that is no greater than forty degrees Fahrenheit.
However, Glass teaches a storage system and method for managing a warehouse having robots of different types [0004] where the environmentally controlled storage is maintained at a temperature that is no greater than forty degrees Fahrenheit [where refrigerated items depending on local regulations are usually between 0° C to 4° C which is 32 °F to 39.2 °F; 0125] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, refrigerating, to a known device, storage, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., maintaining goods at a temperature required by local regulations [Glass;0125]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the environmentally controlled storage is maintained at a temperature that is no greater than forty degrees Fahrenheit in view of the teachings of Glass where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., maintaining goods at a temperature required by local regulations [Glass;0125]
Regarding Claim 14, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and does not teach where the environmentally controlled storage is maintained at a temperature that is in the range of 32 degrees Fahrenheit to 46 degrees Fahrenheit [however, Glass teaches where refrigerated items depending on local regulations are usually between 0° C to 4° C which is 32 °F to 39.2 °F; 0125; refer to the rejection of claim 13 in view of Glass above] and wherein the environmental includes a curtain [refer air curtain as taught in Glass as applied to the rejection of claim 9 above], and wherein during the step of picking the at least one medication directly from the shipping box, the at least one robot penetrates through the curtain [where an instance, such as a robot can pass through an air curtain as taught in Glass as applied to the rejection of claim 9 above]
Regarding Claim 15, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches where the environmentally controlled storage includes a plurality of shipping boxes that are disposed on at least one platform, and wherein the plurality of shipping boxes have open tops [refer to Kimura as applied in the rejection of Claim 9].
Regarding Claim 17, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches wherein the shipping container is an insulated bag that acts as a moisture barrier between an environment outside the shipping container and an inside of the shipping container that can contain the at least one medication and the at least one coolant [refer to Greyshock as applied to the rejection of claim 7].
Claim 6, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greyshock in view of Kimura, Vaccaro and Glass as applied to claim 1 and claim 9 above and in further view of Manning (US20220274778A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 and does not teach where at least one platform includes a plurality of platforms that contain different types of medications, and wherein all of the plurality of platforms are within a reach of the first robot.
However, Manning teaches the automated storage and inventory management of temperature sensitive products, including pharmaceuticals, [0002] where at least one platform includes a plurality of platforms [where the storage area framework is, for example, a cylindrical array having a hollow central core and a series of stacked levels of preferably rectangular storage bays; 0009] that contain different types of medications [where the cold storage includes a reader to identify pharmaceutical products;0164; and multiple temperature zones; 0129], and wherein all of the plurality of platforms are within a reach of the first robot [where robotic access between the different cold storage zones is provided through any suitable resealable structure; 0011] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., Improving efficiency of distribution by reducing time spent retrieving medications for an order where orders may address a plurality of ailments or encompass a an entire medication regimen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Greyshock to have where at least one platform includes a plurality of platforms that contain different types of medications, and wherein all of the plurality of platforms are within a reach of the first robot in view of the teachings of Manning where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., Improving efficiency of distribution by reducing time spent retrieving medications for an order where orders may address a plurality of ailments or encompass a an entire medication regimen.
Regarding Claim 16, Greyshock as modified, teaches the invention of Claim 15 and does not teach where the at least one platform includes a plurality of platforms that contain different types of medications, and wherein all of the plurality of platforms are within a reach of the at least one robot.
However, Manning teaches the automated storage and inventory management of temperature sensitive products, including pharmaceuticals, [0002] where at least one platform includes a plurality of platforms [where the storage area framework is, for example, a cylindrical array having a hollow central core and a series of stacked levels of preferably rectangular storage bays; 0009] that contain different types of medications [where the cold storage includes a reader to identify pharmaceutical products;0164; and multiple temperature zones; 0129], and wherein all of the plurality of platforms are within a reach of the first robot [where robotic access between the different cold storage zones is provided through any suitable resealable structure; 0011] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., Improving efficiency of distribution by reducing time spent retrieving medications for an order where orders may address a plurality of ailments or encompass a an entire medication regimen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Greyshock to have where at least one platform includes a plurality of platforms that contain different types of medications, and wherein all of the plurality of platforms are within a reach of the first robot in view of the teachings of Manning where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., Improving efficiency of distribution by reducing time spent retrieving medications for an order where orders may address a plurality of ailments or encompass a an entire medication regimen.
Regarding Claim 21, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the at least one medication that is disposed within the shipping box includes a plurality of medications that are disposed within a plurality of shipping boxes [refer to Manning as applied to the rejection of claim 6 above], and Greyshock does not teach wherein each of the platforms has an entry end where the plurality of shipping boxes are loaded onto the platform and an exit end where the at least one robot is adapted to retrieve the plurality of medications from the plurality of shipping boxes.
Manning further teaches wherein each of the platforms [where the storage area framework is, for example, a cylindrical array having a hollow central core and a series of stacked levels of preferably rectangular storage bays; 0009] has an entry end where the plurality of shipping are loaded onto the platform boxes [a loading zone configured to receive one or more carriers; 0089] and an exit end [a different loading zone for unloading products; 0089] where the at least one robot is adapted to retrieve the plurality of medications from the plurality of shipping boxes [where one or more robots transport a temperature sensitive product either carried in a carrier or removed from a retainer; 0097] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., Improving efficiency of distribution by reducing time spent retrieving medications for an order where orders may address a plurality of ailments or encompass a an entire medication regimen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Greyshock to have where the at least one medication that is disposed within the shipping box includes a plurality of medications that are disposed within a plurality of shipping boxes, and wherein each of the platforms has an entry end where the plurality of shipping boxes are loaded onto the platform and an exit end where the at least one robot is adapted to retrieve the plurality of medications from the plurality of shipping boxes in view of the teachings of Manning where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., Improving efficiency of distribution by reducing time spent retrieving medications for an order where orders may address a plurality of ailments or encompass an entire medication regimen.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greyshock in view of Kimura, Vaccaro, Glass and Manning as applied to claim 21 above and in further view of Thorhallsson et al. (US20210371200A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Greyshock, as amended, teaches the invention of claim 21 and does not teach where for each platform, the entry end is higher than the exit end so that the plurality of shipping boxes can slide towards the exit end under the influence of gravity.
However, Thorhallsson teaches a system for automatic storage, picking, and packing of items [0002] where for each platform [shelves 9, Figure 5], the entry end is higher than the exit end so that the plurality of shipping boxes can slide towards the exit end under the influence of gravity [where the shelves are inclined such that boxes 39 may slide toward the side of arrangement 45 where robotic arm 1 is positioned; 0067; where the shelves may be refilled with storage boxes from the opposite side of the shelf than the robotic arm; 0037] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., making the direct picking of items more efficient by moving boxes toward the robot as boxes are removed [Thorhallsson; 0037]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where where for each platform, the entry end is higher than the exit end so that the plurality of shipping boxes can slide towards the exit end under the influence of gravity in view of the teachings of Thorhallsson where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., making the direct picking of items more efficient by moving boxes toward the robot as boxes are removed [Thorhallsson; 0037]
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greyshock in view of Kimura, Vaccaro, Glass, Manning and Thorhallsson as applied to claim 22 above and in further view of Lert et al. (US20220343269A1)
Regarding Claim 23, Greyshock, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 22 and further teaches does not teach a waste area is located adjacent the exit ends of the plurality of platforms for receiving shipping boxes that have been emptied of their contents by the at least one robot.
However, Lert teaches a system comprising a fully automated supply chain [Abstract] and further teaches a waste area [where a conveyer 362 disposes of the cardboard from the box cutter, Figure 7; 0031] is located adjacent the exit ends of the plurality of platforms for receiving shipping boxes [where boxes are emptied at automated decant station 350, Figure 7; 0031] that have been emptied of their contents by the at least one robot [second robot arm 360, Figure 7; 0031] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a waste area and platforms for receiving shipping boxes, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., efficiently clearing empty boxes to make room for new shipping boxes
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a waste area is located adjacent the exit ends of the plurality of platforms for receiving shipping boxes that have been emptied of their contents by the at least one robot in view of the teachings of Lert where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., efficiently clearing empty boxes to make room for new shipping boxes
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 11/11/25, with respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/11/25 regarding rejections of claim 1 and claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the remarks, Applicant preemptively argues in regards to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 that none of the applied prior art references, taken alone or in combination, teach such an environmental barrier between a robotic arm and medications. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
On page 11 of the remarks, Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to contemplate modifying Greyshock system to allow for shipping to an intended destination as amended because the entire system of Greyshock is designed for moving medications around a single health care facility. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Greyshock teaches where the invention may be implemented in healthcare facilities that store medications at a remote location such as a distribution center or remote central pharmacy that delivers medications, 0078. Greyshock teaches receiving overpacks from a remote central pharmacy, 0079. Therefore, the overpack packaging system as taught by Greyshock for transporting medications to a location outside of the storage location reads upon “shipping to an intended destination”. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
On page 11-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues in regards to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 that Kumara does not teach using one robot to pick medications and bring them to a shipping container and another robot to pick all of the coolant, a filler, a temperature sensor, and paperwork and bring them to the shipping container as amended. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Greyshock teaches a packaging system for medications and supplies [0086], including a coolant [cold pack; 0239] , filler [where the overpack is insulated;0238], paperwork [where a label may be printed for the overpack; 0097], and temperature sensor [temperature monitoring capabilities such as a temperature monitoring strip; 0238]. Vaccaro is further relied upon to teach claim 8 where Vaccaro teaches more than one robotic arm system for picking applications in an assembly line, 0028. The picker/placer of Vaccaro is adapted to perform the intended function “to retrieve and deliver to the shipping container” as recited in apparatus claim 8 where the positively recited structure is capable of performing the function. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C 103 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Glass et al. (US20240174446A1).
On page 12 of the remarks, Applicant preemptively argues in regards to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 that one of ordinary skill would have no reason to implement the curtain as taught in Zumstein because the purpose of the curtain as taught by Zumstein is to protect a robot from extremely cold temperatures and claim 4 now recites storage temperatures well above the temperatures taught in Zumstein. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Glass.
Claim 9 has been amended similarly to claim 1 and therefore the rejection of record are considered proper and remain.
Claim 11 has been amended similarly to claim 8 and therefore the rejection of record are considered proper and remain.
Claim 14 has been amended similarly to claim 4 and therefore the rejection of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-7 and 10-17 except for their dependence upon claim 1 and claim 9. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763