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 status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 08/11/2026.
Claims 22-31 are still withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 6-7, 9-15 and 20-21 have been cancelled or previously cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 8 and 16-19 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 16-17 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0339026) in view of Dutta et al. (US 10,751,259).
Regarding claim 1: Lee disclose a reminder device for reminding a user when to dose a drug product (Abstract, ¶0003), the reminder device comprising:
a body having a touch screen and a button (Fig. 2, ¶0082);
a motion sensor carried by the body (¶0080: motion sensor, ¶0100: motion sensor 812);
an audible indicator carried by the body for generating an audible alarm (¶0098, ¶0124);
a memory carried by the body and storing a dosing schedule and a reminder schedule (¶0080, ¶0107, Fig. 8, memory 172), the reminder schedule based on user input via the touchscreen (¶0084-0092, ¶0113, ¶0125),
the reminder schedule including at least one time for activating the audible alarm (¶0082, ¶0115, ¶0118); and a processor carried by the body and configured to access and the reminder schedule and execute logic stored on the memory to cause (¶0108: Fig. 8, processor 802):
(A) the touch screen to display a visual notification for reminding the user of the at least one date for the dose (¶0124), comprising a visible indicator that is activated (¶0124: visual notification):
(1) upon actuation of the button on the body; or (2) automatically at a set time before the at least one date of the dose and upon sensing motion via the motion sensor (¶0084, ¶0112, ¶0119, ¶0124), and
(B) the audible alarm to activate at the at least one time for activating the audible alarm (¶0098, ¶0124).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a dosing schedule including at least one date for a dose of a product and that the visual indicator is a countdown timer, the countdown timer updating the at least one date for the dose approaches.
In analogous art regarding medication scheduling, Dutta disclose a dosing schedule including at least one date for a dose of a product and that the visual indicator is a countdown
timer, the countdown timer updating the at least one date for the dose approaches (Fig. 2D-E, Col. 11, Line 58 – Col 12, :Line 6).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a dosing schedule including at least one date for a dose of a product and that the visual indicator is a countdown timer, the countdown timer updating the at least one date for the dose approaches, as disclose by Dutta, to the system of Lee. The motivation is to provide more specific and comprehensive information about the dose schedule and hence making the system more effective.
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Lee and Dutta disclose the reminder device of claim 1, wherein the body includes one or more of: (1) a magnet adapted to attach to a surface of a refrigerated compartment storing the drug product; or (2) a surface adapted to be coupled to a stand disposed near the drug product.(Lee: ¶0013, ¶0082)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Lee and Dutta disclose the reminder device of claim 1, wherein each of the dosing schedule and the reminder schedule may include a frequency, including (a) weekly, (b) bi-monthly, (c) monthly, (d) twice weekly, (e) once every number of months, or (f) once every number of days, the number able to be set to a desired value (Lee: ¶0089, ¶0098).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Lee and Dutta disclose the reminder device of claim 1, further comprising at least one of (a) through (c) as follows: (a) a user-configured wireless communication module for wireless transmission of a text message reminder to a user device, the text message transmitted one or more of: (1) at the at least one date the dose is due, or (2) when the dose is past due. (b) a log of information about depersonalized user actions collected by the processor and stored in the memory, and a user-configured wireless communication module for wireless transfer of the log of information to a remote database; (c) a temperature timer configured to alert the user when the drug product has been out of a refrigerated compartment for a sufficient time to allow the drug product to reach a desired temperature.(Dutta: Col. 19, Line 55-Col. 20, Line 11)
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Lee and Dutta disclose the method of claim 16, further comprising storing, via a memory of the reminder device, one or more of a dosing schedule and a reminder schedule based on input from the user, the dosing schedule including the at least one date for a dose of the drug product, and the reminder schedule including the time for activating the audible alarm.(Dutta: Fig. 2B-F, Col. 11, Line 32-Col. 12, Line 16)
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 5.
Claim(s) 2 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0339026) in view of Dutta et al. (US 10,751,259) and further in view of Manning et al. (US 8,138,939).
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Lee and Dutta disclose the reminder device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein, after the dose is due, the logic is further executable by the processor to automatically change the touch screen to a color indicating the dose is past due. However, color coding alert are well-known in the art as evidence by Manning where it teaches wherein, after the dose is due, the logic is further executable by the processor to automatically change the touch screen to a color indicating the dose is past due (Col. 7, Lines 28-43, claim 30).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein, after the dose is due, the logic is further executable by the processor to automatically change the touch screen to a color indicating the dose is past due, as disclose by Manning, to the system of the combination of Lee and Patwardhan. The motivation is to provide further stimuli to the alert so the user can be more quickly aware of a change in status in regards to the dosage schedule.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 2.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0339026) in view of Dutta et al. (US 10,751,259) and further in view of Schweinfurth et al. (US 2022/0392650)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Lee and Dutta disclose the reminder device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein, after the dose of the drug product is indicated to be taken, the logic is further executable by the processor to provide an option to reorder on the touch screen, and the option to reorder is activated based on user input via the touch screen.
In analogous art regarding medication monitoring, Schweinfurth disclose wherein, after the dose of the drug product is indicated to be taken, the logic is further executable by the processor to provide an option to reorder on the touch screen, and the option to reorder is activated based on user input via the touch screen.(¶0054, ¶0057, Fig. 3)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein, after the dose of the drug product is indicated to be taken, the logic is further executable by the processor to provide an option to reorder on the touch screen, and the option to reorder is activated based on user input via the touch screen, as disclose by Schweinfurth, to the system of the combination of Lee and Dutta. The motivation is to allow reordering on the spot hence making the system more effective and user friendly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance:
Applicant argue that the prior art does not teach the limitation “comprising a visible indicator that is activated: (1) upon actuation of the button on the body; or (2) automatically at a set time before the at least one date of the dose and upon sensing motion via the motion sensor” as the prior art relies on option #2 which requires motion sensing at a before a set time which is not taught by the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Examiner address the limitation in question as a whole. the citation are actually referring to the #1 option which is “comprising a visible indicator that is activated: (1) upon actuation of the button on the body” which is taught by the prior art as indicated above.
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 OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights