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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 1/16/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 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.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No.18337990,17571053,16895942,16431449,16053027,15399106, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The limitation of claim 24 is not disclosed the prior filed applications. The application date of this application is therefor considered as the priority date for claim 24.
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(s) 1-7,9,12-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghouri et al US Patent Application Publication 20190051084 in view of Feng et al. US Patent 10,555874 and further in view of Blum et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170193191.
Regarding claim 1, Ghouri et al. teaches a system comprising: a secure medication container having a unique identifier (the medication container inherently include unique identification in order to communicate over network, figure 1) configured for storing medication in a medication storage unit and having a dispensing mechanism and an input mechanism (paragraph 012-013,015); an application installed on a device, the device having a video camera (paragraph 014,018), a processor and a memory (programming of the dispenser inherently include processor and memory, paragraph 012), and wherein the processor is communicatively connected to the dispensing mechanism and the input mechanism and wherein the memory is communicatively connected to the processor, and wherein the memory has instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to effectuate operations comprising: starting the video camera in response to receiving a start trigger to initiate a recording session (paragraph 017); and generating a video report at a conclusion of the recording session (the video is transmitted in real-time or presented for later viewing, paragraph 06); wherein the recording session includes recording an authorized user of the secure medication container (paragraph 016, 018)(i) accessing the secure medication container using the input mechanism (paragraph 015-16); (ii) receiving the medication from the dispensing mechanism (paragraph 017); and (iii) ingesting the medication by the authorized user or a person under the care of the authorized user (paragraph 017). Ghouri is not explicit in teaching the processor is communicatively connected to the dispensing mechanism and the input mechanism and wherein the memory is communicatively connected to the processor. Feng in an analogous art teaches the processor is communicatively connected to the dispensing mechanism and the input mechanism and wherein the memory is communicatively connected to the processor (col. 5 lines 27-col. 6 line 29) but is silent on teaching associating the medication dispenser identifier with the report. The reference of Blum teaches associating the medication dispenser identifier with the report (paragraph 031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ghouri as disclosed by Feng in view of Blum because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ghouri in order to provide accurate and reliable information regarding the dispensing and adherence to the medication.
Regarding claim 2, Ghouri teaches the input mechanism is a biometric input (paragraph 016).
Regarding claim 3, Ghouri teaches the device is attached to the secure medication container (the programming means is attached to the dispenser, paragraph 017).
Regarding claim 4, Ghouri teaches the recording session records the authorized user's activities (paragraph 018) and the video report correlates the movement of the authorized user to a time stamp associated with dispensing of the medication (paragraph 019-020).
Regarding claim 5, Ghouri teaches a second device in communication with the device and wherein the second device is configured to record a second view of the authorized user in a second recording session and wherein the recording session and the second recording session each have a time stamp, and wherein each of the time stamps are correlated to create a second video report containing two views of the authorized user (the camera record the user at different times of the day based on the prescription, paragraph 017,019-20).
Regarding claim 6, Ghouri teaches the trigger is a prompt from the secure medication container to the device (the trigger is the lifting of the tray or cartridge, paragraph 017)..
Regarding claim 7, Ghouri teaches the prompt is generated manually (the trigger is the lifting of the tray or cartridge, paragraph 017).
Regarding claim 9, Ghouri is silent on teaching the trigger is generated by the secure medication container and transmitted to the device through a cellular network. Feng in an teaches the trigger is generated by the secure medication container and transmitted to the device through a cellular network (communication over telephone network to trigger the apparatus, col. 7 lines 46-65).
Regarding claim 12, Ghouri teaches the trigger is based on receipt of an alert by the device (the trigger is the lifting of the tray or cartridge, paragraph 017)..
Regarding claim 13, Ghouri teaches the trigger is based on accessing the secure medication container by the authorized user (paragraph 016).
Regarding claim 14, Ghouri teaches the video report includes a video and a text communication (fig.4, paragraph 020).
Regarding claim 15, Ghouri teaches the video report is sent from the device to a portal (fig.4, paragraph 020).
Regarding claim 16, Ghouri teaches the portal is viewable by one of a pharmacist, a health care provider, or a caretaker (paragraph 017-018, 020).
Regarding claim 17, Ghouri teaches the video report is time stamped (the video give an indication when the medication was picked up and represent a timestamp, figure 4)
Regarding claim 18, Ghouri teaches the video report has an authentication token (paragraph 020).
Regarding claim 19, Ghouri teaches the authentication token is based on one of facial recognition, internet protocol address, login credentials, a unique identifier of the secure medication container, or the QR code (paragraph 017).
Regarding claim 20, Ghouri teaches the authentication token is verified and wherein the secure medication container is configured to release a next dose of medication based on the verification (paragraph 016).
Regarding claim 21, Ghouri is not explicit in teaching when the authentication token is not verified and wherein the secure medication container is configured to be disabled based on a failure of the verification. Feng in an analogous art teaches when the authentication token is not verified and wherein the secure medication container is configured to be disabled based on a failure of the verification (col. 20-lines 40-col. 21 line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ghouri as disclosed by Feng because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ghouri in order to ensure that the medicine dispenser is not access by an unauthorized person and further increasing the security of the medicine dispenser.
Regarding claim 23, Ghouri teaches the medication is identified in the video report (144, figure 4).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghouri et al US Patent Application Publication 20190051084 in view of Feng et al. US Patent 10,555874 in view of Blum et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170193191 and further in view of Orellano et al. US Patent 10,025,908.
Regarding claim 8, Ghouri is silent on teaching the trigger is generated by the secure medication container and transmitted to the device using near field communications. Orellano et al. in an analogous art teaches the trigger is generated by the secure medication container and transmitted to the device using near field communications (col. 13 line 59-col. 14 line 10, col. 19 line 56-col. 20 line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ghouri in view of Feng in view of Blum as disclosed by Orellano because such modification represents the substitution of one triggering means for another in order to order to effectively capture the video recording of the medication dispensing.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghouri et al US Patent Application Publication 20190051084 in view of Feng et al. US Patent 10,555874 in view of Blum et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170193191 and further in view of Miller et al. US Patent Application Publication 20160134846.
Regarding claim 9, Ghouri et al is silent on teaching the trigger is generated by the secure medication container and transmitted to the device through a cellular network. Miller et al in an analogous art teaches transmitting a trigger to operate a camera device using a cellular network (paragraph 028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system Ghouri in view of Feng in view of Blum as disclosed by Miller because such modification represents the substitution of one triggering means for another in order to order to effectively capture the video recording of the medication dispensing.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghouri et al US Patent Application Publication 20190051084 in view of Feng et al. US Patent 10,555874 in view of Blum et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170193191 and further in view of Kraft US Patent Application Publication 20170326033.
Regarding claim 10-11, Ghouri is silent on teaching the secure medication container contains a QR code and wherein the trigger comprises scanning by the device of the QR code to initiate the recording session. Kraft in an analogous art teaches scanning the QR code of the medicine that is been dispense and activating the camera to record the medicine dispensing and the QR code includes a unique identifier of the secure medication container (Paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ghouri in view of Feng in view of Blum as disclosed by Kraft because such modification represents the substitution of one triggering means for another in order to order to effectively capture the video recording of the medication dispensing.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghouri et al US Patent Application Publication 20190051084 in view of Feng et al. US Patent 10,555874 in view of Blum et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170193191 and further in view of Skoda US Patent Application Publication 20170032101.
Regarding claim 22, Ghouri in view of Feng in view of Blum is silent on teaching the medication is destroyed based on the failure of the verification. Skoda in an analogous art teaches the medication is destroyed based on the failure of the verification (paragraph 084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ghouri in view of Feng in view of Blum as disclosed by Skoda because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ghouri in view of Feng in view of Blum by increasing the security of the medicine dispenser and ensuring the medicine does not fall into the hands of an unauthorized person.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghouri et al US Patent Application Publication 20190051084 in view of Feng et al. US Patent 10,555874 in view of Blum et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170193191 and further in view of Rasmussen US Patent Application Publication 20210241875.
Regarding claim 24, Ghouri is silent on teaching the medication is identified by an artificial intelligence algorithm. Rasmussen in an analogous art teaches the medication is identified by an artificial intelligence algorithm (paragraph 035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ghouri in view of Feng in view of Blum as disclosed by Rasmussen because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ghouri in view of Feng in view of Blum by providing a more efficient control of the medicine dispenser and increase functionality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686