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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "130" and "134" have both been used to designate hopper.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate both “the system” and “drug processing system”.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “a system for at least one of dispensing, inspecting and processing” as recited in claim 1 lines 1-2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “inspection system” as recited in claim 20 line 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “A system for at least one of dispensing, inspecting, and processing a drug comprising” in claim 1 line 1. The limitations as recited disclose three separate processes for the system. The limitations “at least one” allows the user to elect one of the processes the system performs from dispensing, inspecting, and processing a drug. Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-5,8-15 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limer (US 2007/0189597 A1) in view of Devita (US 9,532,928).
Referring to claim 1. Limer discloses a system for at least one of dispensing, inspecting, and processing a drug (400; Figure 9) comprising:
a tray (418; Figure 9) adapted to be operably coupled with a workstation (400), the tray (418; Figure 9) having a body defining a recessed region (424) and a sidewall (426) positioned adjacent to the recessed region (424);
a handle member (438; Figure 11) operably coupled with the tray (418), the handle member (438; Figure 11) positioned at or near a first corner (right side corner of 418 as shown in Figure 11) of the tray; and
a funnel region (portion of tray adjacent member 428; Figure 11) operably coupled with the tray (418), the funnel region (portion of tray adjacent member 428; Figure 11) positioned at or near a second corner of the tray (bottom corner of 418), the first corner being opposite the second corner (see Figure 11).
Limer does not disclose the funnel region including a ramp extending from the recessed region to an upper edge of the sidewall.
Devita discloses a visual verification pharmacy tray (1; Figure 1) wherein the funnel region (60; Figure 2) including a ramp (20; Figure 5) extending from the recessed region (10; Figure 3) to an upper edge of the sidewall (top edge of 40; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Limer to including a ramp extending from the recessed region to an upper edge of the sidewall as taught by Devita because the ramp would prevent accidental release of tablet until the tray is pivoted and the tablets can be more readily directed during release.
Referring to claim 2. Limer discloses a system for dispensing, inspecting, and/or processing a drug (400; Figure 9) comprising:
further comprising a hopper (436) positioned adjacent to a length of the body of the tray (418; see Figure 11).
Referring to claims 3 and 14. Limer discloses a system for dispensing, inspecting, and/or processing a drug (400; Figure 9) comprising:
wherein the hopper (436) comprises a single use hopper adapted to be removably positioned adjacent to the length of the body of the tray (the hopper can be removed from the workstation; Figure 9).
Limer in view of Devita do not disclose the hopper adapted to be discarded.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Limer in view of Devita to including a hopper adapted to be discarded because it would allow a user to use a new hopper each time for dispensing of tablet to limit residue cross contamination of the drugs.
Referring to claim 4. Limer discloses a system for dispensing, inspecting, and/or processing a drug (400; Figure 9) comprising:
wherein
(a) the body of the tray (418) includes a ridge (428) extending from a portion of the recessed region (424).
Referring to claim 5. Limer discloses a system for dispensing, inspecting, and/or processing a drug (400; Figure 9) comprising:
wherein the handle member (438; Figure 11) includes an arm member (arm portion of 438) extending outwardly from the first corner of the tray (upper right side corner of 418) and a gripping member (tip of 438) operably coupled with the arm member (arm portion of 438).
Referring to claims 8 and 18. Limer discloses a system for dispensing, inspecting, and/or processing a drug (400; Figure 9) comprising:
an edge guide (downward turned ledge adjacent member 400; Figure 11) positioned adjacent to the second corner of the tray (see Figure 9).
Referring to claim 9. Limer discloses a system for dispensing, inspecting, and/or processing a drug (400; Figure 9) comprising:
wherein the edge guide (downward turned ledge adjacent member 400; Figure 11) comprises a raised wall extending from the sidewall of the body of the tray (see Figure 9).
Referring to claims 10 and 19. Limer discloses a system for dispensing, inspecting, and/or processing a drug (400; Figure 9) comprising:
wherein the tray (418) further includes a flange (down extending tabs on the tops side of the tray; Figure 9) extending around at least a portion of the sidewall (sidewall of 418), the flange adapted to rest upon a portion of the drug processing system (resting on 410).
Referring to claim 11. Limer in view of Devita do not disclose wherein the tray is constructed from a vacuum molded material.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Limer to have comprised the tray as being constructed from a vacuum molded material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 12. Limer discloses a drug processing system (400; Figure 9) comprising:
a workstation (400) including a platform (410) and an imaging system (406);
a dispensing system (dispensing system of 400) including:
a tray (418) adapted to be operably coupled with the workstation (400), the tray (418) having a body (body of 418) defining a recessed region (424) and a sidewall (426) positioned adjacent to the recessed region (424);
a handle member (438) operably coupled with the tray (418), the handle member (438) positioned at or near a first corner of the tray (right corner of 418);
a funnel region (portion of tray adjacent member 428; Figure 11) operably coupled with the tray (418), the funnel region (portion of tray adjacent member 428; Figure 11) positioned at or near a second corner of the tray (a bottom corner of 418), the first corner (right corner of 418) being opposite the second corner (a bottom corner of 418); and
a counting system operably coupled with the workstation, the counting system (counting apparatus Para. [0122]) adapted to count a quantity of items (the counter is used for counting pills to be dispensed by a pharmacist, Para. [0122]) sensed by the imaging system (406) that are disposed on the recessed region of the tray (418).
Limer does not disclose the funnel region including a ramp extending from the recessed region to an upper edge of the sidewall.
Devita discloses a visual verification pharmacy tray (1; Figure 1) wherein the funnel region (60; Figure 2) including a ramp (20; Figure 5) extending from the recessed region (10; Figure 3) to an upper edge of the sidewall (top edge of 40; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Limer to including a ramp extending from the recessed region to an upper edge of the sidewall as taught by Devita because the ramp would prevent accidental release of tablet until the tray is pivoted and the tablets can be more readily directed during release.
Referring to claim 13. Limer discloses a drug processing system (400; Figure 9) comprising:
a hopper (436) positioned adjacent to a length of the body of the tray (418) and along a portion of the workstation (400; see Figure 9).
Referring to claim 15. Limer discloses a drug processing system (400; Figure 9) comprising:
wherein
(a) the body of the tray (418) includes a ridge (428) extending from a portion of the recessed region (424)
wherein the handle member (438; Figure 11) includes an arm member (arm portion of 438) extending outwardly from the first corner of the tray (upper right side corner of 418) and a gripping member (tip of 438) operably coupled with the arm member (arm portion of 438).
Referring to claim 20. Limer discloses a drug processing system (400; Figure 9) comprising:
a workstation (400) including a base (base of 400; Figure 9) and an elevated platform (410) operably coupled with the base (base of 400); and
an inspection system (406) including:
a tray (418) adapted to be at least partially operably coupled with at least a portion of the elevated platform (410; see Figure 9), the tray (418) having a body defining a recessed region (424) and a sidewall (426) positioned adjacent to the recessed region (424), the tray (418) being constructed from an optically transparent material (In some embodiments of the invention the tray 502 is substantially clear; Para. [0123]); and
a funnel region (portion of tray adjacent member 428; Figure 11) operably coupled with the tray (418), the funnel region (portion of tray adjacent member 428; Figure 11) positioned at or near a corner of the tray (bottom corner of 418).
Limer does not disclose the funnel region including a ramp extending from the recessed region to an upper edge of the sidewall.
Devita discloses a visual verification pharmacy tray (1; Figure 1) wherein the funnel region (60; Figure 2) including a ramp (20; Figure 5) extending from the recessed region (10; Figure 3) to an upper edge of the sidewall (top edge of 40; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Limer to including a ramp extending from the recessed region to an upper edge of the sidewall as taught by Devita because the ramp would prevent accidental release of tablet until the tray is pivoted and the tablets can be more readily directed during release.
Referring to claim 21. Limer discloses a drug processing system (400; Figure 9) comprising:
wherein the elevated platform (410; see Figure 9) includes:
at least one arm (404) operably coupled with the base (bottom of 400), the at least one arm (404) including an upright member (support of 404) extending upwardly from the base (see Figure 400); and
a platform frame (410) operably coupled with the upright member (support of 404) of the at least one arm (404), the platform frame (410) defining an opening (center region for the tray 418) to receive at least a portion of the tray (418).
Referring to claim 22. Limer discloses a drug processing system (400; Figure 9) further comprising:
a reflective member (120; Figure 5) positioned below the tray (122).
Referring to claim 23. Limer discloses a drug processing system (400; Figure 9) further comprising:
wherein the inspection system (400; Figure 9) further includes a handle member (438) operably coupled with the tray (418), the handle member (438) positioned at or near a corner of the tray (right corner of 418) that is opposite the funnel region (portion of tray adjacent member 428; Figure 11).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limer (US 2007/0189597 A1) in view of Devita (US 9,532,928) and further in view of Yang (CN 201905751 U).
Referring to claim 6. Limer in view of Devita do not disclose the arm member is pivotably coupled with the first corner of the tray.
Yang discloses a baking tray (Figure 1) wherein the arm member (4; Figure 1) is pivotably coupled with the first corner of the tray (side of a tray).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Limer in view of Devita to include the arm member as being pivotably coupled with the first corner of the tray as taught by Yang because the pivotal handle would allow a user to more easily grasp the tray.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See amended rejections cited above.
Applicant’s amendment includes new limitations specifically reciting “the funnel region including a ramp extending from the recessed region to an upper edge of the sidewall” in independent claims 1, 12 and 20. The teaching gleaned from the new reference so f Devita (US 9,532,928) disclose a visual verification pharmacy tray (1; Figure 1) wherein the funnel region (60; Figure 2) including a ramp (20; Figure 5) extending from the recessed region (10; Figure 3) to an upper edge of the sidewall (top edge of 40; Figure 6). Thus, It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Limer to including a ramp extending from the recessed region to an upper edge of the sidewall as taught by Devita because the ramp would prevent accidental release of tablet until the tray is pivoted and the tablets can be more readily directed during release.
Applicant’s amendment dated 12/12/2025 comprises an amendment to the drawings and indicates an attachment of replacement drawings. However, the amendment does not include the replacement drawings. It is not clear as to whether the drawings amendment is missing of not submitted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights