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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Therefore, the claim language that uses the word “means” or “step” will be interpreted as follows:
“a determination step”, first mentioned in Claim 18, line 2, will be interpreted as confirmation if a medicine has been dispensed correctly as described in paragraph 0226 of the specification and shown in Figure 36.
“a storage step”, first mentioned in Claim 18, line 5, will be interpreted as storing dispensing confirmation information in a storage part with regard to a medicine dispensing part determined in the determination step as described in paragraph 0007 of the specification.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“determination processing part”, first mentioned in Claim 1 line 2, which will be interpreted as a part of a processor that is part of a control device that computes confirmation that a medicine has been dispensed correctly as shown in Figure 30 and described in paragraph 0006 and 0136 of the specification.
“medicine dispensing part”, first mentioned in Claim 1 line 3, which will be interpreted as a medicine cassette per paragraph 0012 of the specification, in which the medicine cassette is a device that can store medicine and put it along an adjustable path for dispensing.
“storage processing part”, first mentioned in Claim 1 line 5, which will be interpreted as a part of a processor that is part of a control device that computes storage of confirmation information to the storage part as shown in Figure 30 and described in paragraph 0277 of the specification.
“storage part”, first mentioned in Claim 1 line 5, which will be interpreted as an RFID tag that stores confirmation information on the medication being dispensed per paragraph 0016 of the specification.
“restriction processing part”, first mentioned in Claim 2 line 2, which will be interpreted as a part of a processor that is part of a control device that computes performance of restriction action as shown in Figure 30 and described in paragraph 0142 of the specification.
“dispensing detection part”, first mentioned in Claim 5 line 2, which will be interpreted as a sensor that can detect medicine being dispensed as described in paragraph 0113 of the specification.
“reception processing part”, first mentioned in Claim 8 line 2, which will be interpreted as a part of a processor that is part of a control device that computes input from a user as shown in Figure 30 and described in paragraph 0145 of the specification.
“display processing part”, first mentioned in Claim 9 line 2, which will be interpreted as display system, including processing for display, provided as a user interface as shown in Figure 30 and described in paragraph 0147 of the specification.
“detection processing part”, first mentioned in Claim 12 line 2, which will be interpreted as a part of a processor that is part of a control device that computes and/or detects the adjustment value of devices controlling the dispensing path of medicine as shown in Figure 30 and described in paragraph 0146 of the specification.
“adjusting part”, first mentioned in Claim 12 line 3, which will be interpreted as a moving part that can manually adjust the dispensing path of a medicine as described in paragraph 0035 of the specification.
“notification processing part”, first mentioned in Claim 15 line 2, which will be interpreted as a part of a processor that is part of a control device that computes notifications of adjustment and/or target value to communicate to a user as shown in Figure 30 and described in paragraph 0149 of the specification.
“initial position detection part”, first mentioned in Claim 16 line 3, which will be interpreted as one or more sensors that can detect the state of adjustment to the dispensing path of medicine as described in paragraph 0107 and 0146 of the specification.
“first display processing part”, first mentioned in Claim 17 line 2, which will be interpreted as a portion of the display processing part that computes and displays actions of the adjustment paths for dispensing medicine as described in paragraph 0148 of the specification.
“second display processing part”, first mentioned in Claim 17 line 3, which will be interpreted as portion of the display processing part that computes and displays actions of the adjustment paths for dispensing medicine, wherein the actions can be secondary actions to the actions computed and displayed by the first display processing part as described in paragraph 0148 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Chen (US 10722431 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a medicine dispensing system comprising:
a determination processing part that determines whether or not a medicine has been dispensed from a medicine dispensing part that can be adjusted to a plurality of states capable of dispensing different types of medicines (Figure 6 shows a block diagram for the process of dispensing of medicine, it includes block 624 which checks all medicine containers were finished for a single prescription, which means that a processing part 106 determines whether or not a medicine has been dispensed, and block 626 which checks if there are further prescriptions, which means that different types of medicine is capable of being dispensed by dispensing part, or container loading station 208 comprising medicine containers 390 on carousel 310 which adjusts to different states of rotation);
and a storage processing part that stores dispensing confirmation information in a storage part in a state in which a correspondence relationship with the medicine dispensing part can be specified when the determination processing part determines that the medicine has been dispensed from the medicine dispensing part (wherein the storage part is the container identification unit 385 described to be a physical device in column 9 lines 61-67, block 602 and 628 of the process diagram in Figure 6 describes both applying the identification unit to a medicine container and updating prescription information which is stored in memory 108, described in column 15 lines 47-51, updating prescription information would have to include notification that the patient has received dispensed medicine).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen further teaches a restriction processing part that restricts a medicine dispensing operation for dispensing the medicine from the medicine dispensing part based on a medicine dispensing data when the dispensing confirmation information corresponding to the medicine dispensing part is not stored in the storage part (Figure 10 shows a process diagram with block 1024 and 1030 describe a process of restricting medicine in the event dosage is greater than prescribed, which means that a restriction is performed in response to medicine dispensing data prior to confirmation that the medicine was dispensed).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen further teaches a test dispensing operation that is executed after adjustment of the medicine dispensing part according to a type of the medicine to be dispensed allocated to the medicine dispensing part and dispensing the medicine from the medicine dispensing part, the determination processing part determines whether or not the medicine has been dispensed from the medicine dispensing part (block 624 shown in Figure 6, described in column 15 lines 25-47 checks if all medicine has been dispensed according to the prescription dosage and user prompt answers before continuing operation to another prescription or finishing with updating the prescription information, meaning the dosage and user prompts is checked as the test dispensing operation prior to the processor determining the medicine has been dispensed).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen further teaches wherein the storage processing part stores the dispensing confirmation information in a state in which a correspondence relationship between the dispensing confirmation information, the medicine dispensing part and the type of medicine allocated to the medicine dispensing part can be specified (the container identification unit 385 described in column 9 lines 61-67 is used in block 602 of the process diagram in Figure 6 where information is applied to the identification unit associated with a medicine storage container 206, or 390 in Figure 4B).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen further teaches a dispensing detection part capable of detecting the medicine dispensed from the medicine dispensing part, wherein in the test dispensing operation for the medicine dispensing part, the determination processing part determines that the medicine has been dispensed from the medicine dispensing part on condition that dispensation of a predetermined number of medicines has been detected by the dispensing detection part (described in column 15 lines 25-47, wherein the processor determines that medicine has been dispensed, in order to determine this the processor would have to rely on a sensor to detect the medicine).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen further teaches wherein the determination processing part determines that the medicine has been dispensed from the medicine dispensing part on condition that a specific user operation has been performed after the test dispensing operation for the medicine dispensing part has been performed (described in column 15 lines 25-47, wherein the processor can determine that medicine has been dispensed based on prompt answers the user provides).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen further teaches wherein the determination processing part determines that the medicine has been dispensed from the medicine dispensing part on condition that the test dispensing operation for the medicine dispensing part is completed (column 15 lines 25-47 describes a check if all medicine has been dispensed according to the prescription dosage and user prompt answers before continuing operation to another prescription or finishing with updating the prescription information, meaning the dosage and user prompts is checked as the test dispensing operation prior to the processor determining the medicine has been dispensed).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen further teaches a reception processing part capable of receiving input of one or more of a quantity of the medicines to be filled in the medicine dispensing part, a date of filling and an expiration date before start of the test dispensing operation (block 604 and 628 in Figure 6 describe inputting and updating prescription information of medicines that are to be filled and have completed filling, such prescription information is known to include date of filling and expiration dates of prescription and/or medicine).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen further teaches a display processing part that displays presence or absence of the dispensing confirmation information corresponding to the medicine dispensing part on a display screen that is displayed when the medicine dispensing part is filled with the medicine (described in column 8 lines 36-56 and column 16 lines 21-43).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen further teaches wherein the storage part is provided in the medicine dispensing part corresponding to the dispensing confirmation information (shown in Figure 4A and 4B).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen further teaches wherein the storage processing part stores the dispensing confirmation information, identification information of the medicine dispensing part and the type of medicine allocated to the medicine dispensing part in association with each other in the storage part (described in column 12 lines 1-15 and column 15 lines 47-51).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen further teaches an adjusting system comprising:
a detection processing part capable of detecting a current adjustment value of a dimension of a dispensing path by an adjusting part capable of manually adjusting the dimension of the dispensing path of a medicine in a medicine dispensing part (column 10 lines 6-20 describes either a carousel, robot or conveyor being utilized for moving medicine storage containers from one position to another, column 15 line 21-24 describes remembering the identification and location of each medicine storage container, meaning that in movement of the carousel, robot or conveyor to dispense medicine, there would have to be detection of an adjustment value of a dimension of a dispensing path by an adjusting part, for example location within the carousel as the carousel rotates and therefore adjusts the dispensing path of a medicine dispensing part, or medicine storage container 206);
and a display processing part that displays the current adjustment value detected by the detection processing part and a target value for adjustment in a comparable manner (column 8 lines 36-56 describes the display 200 showing operation of the container loading station 208 which contains carousel 310 and the display providing controls for operation of the medicine storage containers 206 on the container loading station 208, this would mean the presenting medicine storage container shown in Figure 2 would have at least its medicine information displayed and indication that its container is being presented, therefore indicating the current adjustment value has reached a target value).
Regarding Claim 18, Chen further teaches a program for causing a processor to execute:
a determination step for determining whether or not a medicine has been dispensed from a medicine dispensing part that can be adjusted to a plurality of states capable of dispensing different types of medicines (Figure 6 shows a block diagram for the process of dispensing of medicine, it includes block 624 which checks all medicine containers were finished for a single prescription, which means that a processing part 106 determines whether or not a medicine has been dispensed, and block 626 which checks if there are further prescriptions, which means that different types of medicine is capable of being dispensed by dispensing part, or medicine containers 390 on carousel 310 which adjusts to different states of rotation);
and a storage step for storing dispensing confirmation information in a storage part in a state in which a correspondence relationship with the medicine dispensing part can be specified when the determination step determines that the medicine has been dispensed from the medicine dispensing part (wherein the storage part is the container identification unit 385 described to be a physical device in column 9 lines 61-67, block 602 and 628 of the process diagram in Figure 6 describes both applying the identification unit to a medicine container and updating prescription information which is stored in memory 108, described in column 15 lines 47-51, updating prescription information would have to include notification that the patient has received dispensed medicine).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10722431 B2) in view of Sahai (US 5971594 A).
Chen teaches the claim limitations of Claim 12 as above.
Chen does not teach the display processing part displays adjustment difference information capable of specifying a difference between the current adjustment value and the target value.
Sahai teaches a medicine dispensing system comprising detection of a rotating carousel’s position (described in column 17 lines 31-39).
Regarding Claim 13, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the carousel position detector taught by Sahai to the adjusting system of Chen. The result would enable the adjusting system of Chen to track and report the position of medications in each medicine storage container to be dispensed by the adjusting system of Chen and even provide it in the user interface on its display and provide further confirmation to users that the correct amount of all different types of prescribed medications have been dispensed. Specifically, the modification would provide the positioning of the current medication container presented as the target value and the positioning of an initial and/or additional medication that needs to be dispensed, or current adjustment value to inform the user which position(s) of medication containers they need to await to receive all prescribed medication. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the position detector taught by Sahai to the adjusting system of Chen without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the position detector of Sahai to the adjusting system of Chen would produce the predictable results of dispensing prescribed medications to a user in separate forms and order.
Regarding Claim 15, the application of the position detector of Sahai to the adjustment system of Chen can further provide a notification processing part that notifies a user when difference between the current adjustment value and the target value reaches a predetermined range or less. This would be for the purpose of notifying a user when their prescribed initial and/or additional medications are ready to be collected. Specifically, the notification can be generated when the current adjustment value, or a position that is not in the presenting position, reaches the target value, or the presenting position.
Regarding Claim 16, the application of the position detector of Sahai to the adjustment system of Chen can further provide an initial position detection part capable of detecting that the adjusting part is in an initial state; and an operation amount detection part capable of detecting an operation amount of the adjusting part, wherein the detection processing part identifies the current adjustment value based on the operation amount of the adjusting part detected by the operation amount detection part after the initial position detection part detects that the adjusting part is in the initial state. This would be for the purpose of providing further confirmation to a user that all initial and/or additional prescribed medications either are in the process or have completed the process of dispensing.
Regarding Claim 17, the application of the position detector of Sahai to the adjustment system of Chen can further provide a first display processing part for displaying a list of a plurality of work process groups included in manual adjustment work using the adjusting part; and a second display processing part that sequentially displays one or more work processes included in each of the work process groups after the work process group is displayed by the first display processing part. Specifically, the work process groups can be displayed in the form of rotation sequences of the container loading station that are being performed and/or need to be performed in order to provide a user information with regard to receiving all of their prescribed medications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art: the adjusting system of Chen (US 10722431 B2) does not teach wherein the display processing part displays a second region having an area, length or width corresponding to difference between the target value and the current adjustment value and a third region having an area, length or width corresponding to the current adjustment value in a first region having an area, length or width corresponding to the target value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272 -9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacob Scott can be reached on 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.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655