DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/25 have been fully read and considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 3, claim 3 is now rejected under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph as being indefinite since claim 3 is dependent on canceled claim 2. Applicant needs to make dependent claim 3 dependent on claim 1 for withdraw of 112 rejection.
Also claims 1, 3 and 7-9 are now rejected under 103 with Davis (US 6,610,973) and Kim (US 2009/0188937) in view of Lin (US 2009/0323170). Peruse the rejection below for elaboration.
Claims 4-5, 10 and 12 are now rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis (US 6,610,973), Kim (US 2009/0188937) and Lin (US 2009/0323170) in view of Alouani (US 7,028,723).
Claim 11 is now rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis (US 6,610,973), Kim (US 2009/0188937) and Lin (US 2009/0323170) in view of Naporano (US 2008/0135693).
And as for claims 13-16 and 18-20, the prior art rejections are withdrawn since the prior art does not disclose “…wherein the workstation further comprises a processor configured to: receive the weight of the medication receptacle, calculate a deviation between the weight to an anticipated weight, and provide an indication if the deviation exceeds a predetermined threshold” of currently amended claim 13. However, claim 13 is still rejected under obviousness double patenting rejection since claim 13 of present Application ‘298 is similar to the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of US Patent No. 10,045,912.
Thus, a filing of a terminal disclaimer would make claims 13-16 and 18-20 patentable.
With regards to lines 12-13 and lines 17-19 on page 7 of Applicant's remarks about currently amended claim 1, Applicant asserts that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify Davis and/or Kim with Lin's teachings of a concave profile to arrive at the present claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with the combination of Davis and Kim together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
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).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With regards to lines 20-21 on page 7 of Applicant's remarks, Applicant asserts that Lin is non-analogous art and is therefore not suitable to be used in obviousness rejection for claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Lin is non-analogous art and is therefore not suitable to be used in obviousness rejection for claim 1, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with the combination of Davis and Kim together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
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).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with the combination of Davis and Kim together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
With regards to last line on page 7 to line 2 on page 8 of Applicant's remarks, Applicant asserts that the present claims and Lin are from different fields of endeavor, and thus Lin is considered non-analogous art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the present claims and Lin are from different fields of endeavor, and thus Lin is considered non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with the combination of Davis and Kim together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
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).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with the combination of Davis and Kim together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
With regards to the double patenting rejections, claims 1 and 4-8 are now rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912 in view of Lin (US 2009/0323170).
Claims 13-15 are now rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912. Peruse the rejection below for elaboration.
Claim 16 is now rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912 in view of Davis (US 6,610,973).
Claims 18-19 are now rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912 in view of Lin (US 2009/0323170).
Claim 20 is now rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912 and Davis (US 6,610,973) in view of Alouani (US 7,028,723).
Applicant stated that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are deemed allowable.
Specifically, for claim 13, since previous claim 17 has been incorporated together with claim 13, the prior art rejection for claims 13-16 and 18-20 is withdrawn since the prior art does not disclose “…wherein the workstation further comprises a processor configured to: receive the weight of the medication receptacle, calculate a deviation between the weight to an anticipated weight, and provide an indication if the deviation exceeds a predetermined threshold” of currently amended claim 13. However, claim 13 is still rejected under obviousness double patenting rejection since claim 13 of present Application ‘298 is similar to the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of US Patent No. 10,045,912.
Thus, a filing of a terminal disclaimer would make claims 13-16 and 18-20 patentable.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 is dependent on canceled claim 2. Applicant needs to make dependent claim 3 dependent on claim 1 for withdraw of 112 rejection.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3 and 7-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis (US 6,610,973) and Kim (US 2009/0188937) in view of Lin (US 2009/0323170).
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses a workstation for use in a system for medical dose preparation management (col.1, ln.43-49, fig.1, Davis discloses a workstation for preparing medication), the workstation comprising:
a base (col.2, ln.57-64, Davis discloses element 26 is a base that is similar to Applicant’s element 236 of fig.3);
a support platform at least partially defining a medication preparation staging region and having a support surface (col.2, ln.27-32, Davis discloses a support platform element 12 that comprises a region that is utilized for preparation of medication, pills or tablets, wherein camera 22 is placed above the support platform for capturing images of the medication, pills or tablets); and
an imaging device supportably disposed relative to the base and having an imaging field encompassing at least a portion of the medication preparation staging region (col.2, ln.17-23, Davis discloses element 22 is a camera or imaging device disposed relative to base 26 and having an imaging field for encompassing at least a portion of medication preparation staging region that is located below the imaging device 22 to image the pills located on the container of element 12).
Davis does not disclose a support platform at least partially defining a medication preparation staging region and having a support surface comprising a plurality of channels, at least one of the plurality of channels extending along an entire length of the support surface. However, Kim teaches a support platform at least partially defining a medication preparation staging region and having a support surface comprising a plurality of channels (paragraph [37], in fig.1-2, Kim discloses a support platform 20 that discloses a plurality of tablet receiving grooves for placing medication tablets or pills on the tray, and that element 20 has plural rows and columns of grooves that extend in a first direction that corresponds to the width of a support surface, and that there is another portion of the grooves that extend to another direction corresponding to the entire length of the support surface, wherein element 20 has length, width and depth), at least one of the plurality of channels extending along an entire length of the support surface (paragraph [37], in fig.1-2, Kim discloses a support platform 20 that discloses a plurality of tablet receiving grooves for placing medication tablets or pills on the tray, and that element 20 has plural rows and columns of grooves that extend in a first direction that corresponds to the width of a support surface, and that there is another portion of the grooves that extend to another direction corresponding to the entire length of the support surface, wherein element 20 has length, width and depth). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis and Kim together as a whole for preparing medicine, pills or tablets in order to accurately organize medication pills or tablets for mass distribution to people who need medicine.
Davis and Kim do not disclose wherein each of the plurality of channels comprises a concave profile. However, Lin teaches wherein each of the plurality of channels comprises a concave profile (paragraph [75], Lin discloses that the grooves 1010 are semi-circular or concave, or an any other shape and size, and that semi-circular grooves comprise a circular shape, wherein circular shapes comprise a radius or a radial curvature; paragraph [66], Lin discloses that plate 830 in fig.12 has grooves 1010 and in fig.8, grooves 1010 and 1020, and paragraph [77], Lin discloses that horizontal and vertical grooves 1010 and 1020 can be located on plate 830). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with the combination of Davis and Kim together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
Regarding claim 3, Davis and Kim do not disclose wherein the plurality of channels are configured to retain a cylindrical body to prevent rolling movement. However, Lin teaches wherein the plurality of channels are configured to retain a cylindrical body to prevent rolling movement (paragraph [75], Lin discloses that the grooves 1010 are semi-circular or concave, or an any other shape and size, and that semi-circular grooves comprise a circular shape, wherein circular shapes comprise a radius or a radial curvature, wherein the circular shape of the semi-circular grooves provides a cylindrical body for preventing the pills or contents from rolling movements; paragraph [66], Lin discloses that plate 830 in fig.12 has grooves 1010 and in fig.8, grooves 1010 and 1020, and paragraph [77], Lin discloses that horizontal and vertical grooves 1010 and 1020 can be located on plate 830). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with the combination of Davis and Kim together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
Regarding claim 7, Regarding claim 7, Davis discloses a base (col.2, ln.57-64, Davis discloses element 26 is a base that is similar to Applicant’s element 236 of fig.3) and a support platform (col.2, ln.27-32, Davis discloses a support platform element 12 that comprises a region that is utilized for preparation of medication, pills or tablets, wherein camera 22 is placed above the support platform for capturing images of the medication, pills or tablets).
Davis does not disclose wherein the support platform is removably disposed relative to the base. However, Kim discloses a support platform is removable (paragraph [37-38], in fig.1-2, Kim discloses a support platform 20 that discloses a plurality of tablet receiving grooves for placing medication tablets or pills). Since Davis discloses a base and support platform, and Kim discloses a support platform is removable, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis and Kim together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “wherein the support platform is removably disposed relative to the base” in order to accurately organize medication pills or tablets for mass distribution to people who need medicine.
Regarding claim 8, Davis discloses further comprising: a housing (col.2, ln.9-26 and col.2, ln.43 to col.3, ln.4, Davis discloses that translucent panel 18 covers the boxed area formed by element 12 having sides 14 and top 16), wherein the imaging device is located at least partially within the housing (col.2, ln.17-23, Davis discloses element 22 is a camera or imaging device disposed relative to base 26 and having an imaging field for encompassing at least a portion of medication preparation staging region that is located below the imaging device 22 to image the pills located on the container of element 12); and a support member extending between the base and the housing for supportably disposing the imaging device relative to the base and the support platform (col.3, ln.1-4, Davis discloses that support member 26 extends between element 12 and camera 22 and that Davis discloses that any other design of support 26 can be utilized for providing the proper location of the camera 22 and providing ease of distribution of pills/capsules on translucent panel 18, thus, permitting the camera or imaging device to be partially disposed within the housing). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or modify the support structure of Davis to any design necessary to permit the placement of the camera or imaging device to be placed at least partially within the housing in order to capture the images needed for preparing medication pills/capsules in a proper dosage.
Regarding claim 9, Davis discloses a display (col.4, ln.10-15, Davis discloses an output device 30 for displaying data).
Claims 4-5, 10 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis (US 6,610,973), Kim (US 2009/0188937) and Lin (US 2009/0323170) in view of Alouani (US 7,028,723).
Regarding claim 4, Davis discloses a support platform at least partially defining a medication preparation staging region and having a support surface (col.2, ln.27-32, Davis discloses a support platform element 12 that comprises a region that is utilized for preparation of medication, pills or tablets, wherein camera 22 is placed above the support platform for capturing images of the medication, pills or tablets).
Davis, Kim and Lin do not disclose a scale to output a weight corresponding to a medication receptacle supportably disposed on the support surface in the medication preparation staging region. However, Alouani a scale to output a weight corresponding to a medication receptacle supportably disposed on the support surface in the medication preparation staging region (col.7, ln.31-44, in fig.3, Alouani discloses medication preparation staging region for preparing medication in that a weight scale 316 is utilized for weighing the pills or tablets on the turn-table and then determines whether the contents of the pill bottle meets the threshold for the prescription; col.4, ln.36-41, Alouani discloses obtaining a weight for the pill bottle with the contents). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis, Kim, Lin and Alouani together as a whole for ensuring accurate measurement of medication pills to eliminate unnecessary idle time at any of the prescription measurement stations (Alouani's col.2, ln.35-40).
Regarding claim 5, Davis discloses a base (col.2, ln.57-64, Davis discloses element 26 is a base that is similar to Applicant’s element 236 of fig.3).
Davis, Kim and Lin do not disclose wherein the scale is included in the base. However, Alouani discloses a scale utilized in a medication preparation staging region (col.7, ln.31-44, in fig.3, Alouani discloses medication preparation staging region for preparing medication in that a weight scale 316 is utilized for weighing the pills or tablets on the turn-table and then determines whether the contents of the pill bottle meets the threshold for the prescription; col.4, ln.36-41, Alouani discloses obtaining a weight for the pill bottle with the contents). Since Davis discloses a base, and Alouani discloses a scale, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis, Kim, Lin and Alouani together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “wherein the scale is included in the base” in order to ensure accurate measurement of medication pills to eliminate unnecessary idle time at any of the prescription measurement stations (Alouani's col.2, ln.35-40).
Regarding claim 10, Davis discloses a display to output image data (col.4, ln.10-15, Davis discloses an output device 30 for displaying data).
Davis, Kim and Lin do not disclose wherein the imaging device comprises a digital camera operable to output digital image data. However, Alouani teaches wherein the imaging device comprises a digital camera (col.2, ln.13, Alouani discloses implementing a digital camera for capturing digital image data). Since Davis discloses “a display to output image data”, and Alouani discloses “a digital camera”, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis, Kim, Lin and Alouani together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “wherein the imaging device comprises a digital camera operable to output digital image data” in order to ensure accurate measurement of medication pills to eliminate unnecessary idle time at any of the prescription measurement stations (Alouani's col.2, ln.35-40).
Regarding claim 12, Davis, Kim and Lin do not disclose wherein the workstation is configured to acquire a barcode scan of a medication. However, Alouani teaches wherein the workstation is configured to acquire a barcode scan of a medication (col.4, ln.52-60, Alouani discloses indexer 108 for reading bar code of a medication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis, Kim, Lin and Alouani together as a whole for ensure accuracy for measuring medication pills to eliminate unnecessary idle time at any of the prescription measurement stations (Alouani's col.2, ln.35-40).
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis (US 6,610,973), Kim (US 2009/0188937) and Lin (US 2009/0323170) in view of Naporano (US 2008/0135693).
Regarding claim 11, Davis, Kim and Lin do not disclose wherein the base comprises one or more feet. However, Naporano wherein the base comprises one or more feet (paragraph [20], last sentence, Naporano discloses utilizing suction cups 12 on underside surface of bottom portion 4 of base member 2 for securing the base to a flat surface, thus, the suction cups function as feet for the base, and thus, Naporano discloses the base comprises one or more feet). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis, Kim, Lin and Naporano together as a whole for ensuring the base is secured on the flat surface for permitting safe measurement of the medication dosages.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of present Application ‘298 is similar to the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912. Thus, claim 13 of present Application ‘298 is anticipated by the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912.
Claim 14 of present Application ‘298 is similar to claim 4 of Patent ‘912. Thus, claim 14 of present Application ‘298 is anticipated by claim 4 of Patent ‘912.
Claim 15 of present Application ‘298 is similar to claim 5 of Patent ‘912. Thus, claim 15 of present Application ‘298 is anticipated by claim 5 of Patent ‘912.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912 in view of Davis (US 6,610,973).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912 do not disclose the workstation comprising a display. However, Davis teaches the workstation comprising a display (col.4, ln.10-15, Davis discloses an output device 30 for displaying data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912 and Davis together as a whole for providing a display in order to permit the user to clearly view the medication that is being counted on screen so as to ascertain precision of preparing dosages of medicine to patients.
Claims 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912 in view of Lin (US 2009/0323170).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912 do not disclose wherein each of the plurality of channels comprises a concave profile. However, Lin teaches wherein each of the plurality of channels comprises a concave profile (paragraph [75], Lin discloses that the grooves 1010 are semi-circular or concave, or an any other shape and size, and that semi-circular grooves comprise a circular shape, wherein circular shapes comprise a radius or a radial curvature; paragraph [66], Lin discloses that plate 830 in fig.12 has grooves 1010 and in fig.8, grooves 1010 and 1020, and paragraph [77], Lin discloses that horizontal and vertical grooves 1010 and 1020 can be located on plate 830). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912 together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912 do not disclose wherein the plurality of channels are configured to retain a cylindrical body to prevent rolling movement. However, Lin teaches wherein the plurality of channels are configured to retain a cylindrical body to prevent rolling movement (paragraph [75], Lin discloses that the grooves 1010 are semi-circular or concave, or an any other shape and size, and that semi-circular grooves comprise a circular shape, wherein circular shapes comprise a radius or a radial curvature, wherein the circular shape of the semi-circular grooves provides a cylindrical body for preventing the pills or contents from rolling movements; paragraph [66], Lin discloses that plate 830 in fig.12 has grooves 1010 and in fig.8, grooves 1010 and 1020, and paragraph [77], Lin discloses that horizontal and vertical grooves 1010 and 1020 can be located on plate 830). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912 together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912 and Davis (US 6,610,973) in view of Alouani (US 7,028,723).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912 do not disclose a display to output image data. However, Davis discloses a display to output image data (col.4, ln.10-15, Davis discloses an output device 30 for displaying data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912 and Davis together as a whole for providing a display in order to permit the user to clearly view the medication that is being counted on screen so as to ascertain precision of preparing dosages of medicine to patients.
The combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912 do not disclose wherein the imaging device comprises a digital camera operable to output digital image data. However, Alouani teaches wherein the imaging device comprises a digital camera (col.2, ln.13, Alouani discloses implementing a digital camera for capturing digital image data). Since Davis discloses “a display to output image data”, and Alouani discloses “a digital camera”, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the combination of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912, Davis and Alouani together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “wherein the imaging device comprises a digital camera operable to output digital image data” in order to ensure accurate measurement of medication pills to eliminate unnecessary idle time at any of the prescription measurement stations (Alouani's col.2, ln.35-40).
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,912 in view of Lin (US 2009/0323170).
Regarding claim 1, claim of Patent ‘912 discloses most of the limitations of claim 1 of present Application ‘298. Peruse the table below. Claim 1 of Patent ‘912 does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of channels comprises a concave profile. However, Lin teaches wherein each of the plurality of channels comprises a concave profile (paragraph [75], Lin discloses that the grooves 1010 are semi-circular or concave, or an any other shape and size, and that semi-circular grooves comprise a circular shape, wherein circular shapes comprise a radius or a radial curvature; paragraph [66], Lin discloses that plate 830 in fig.12 has grooves 1010 and in fig.8, grooves 1010 and 1020, and paragraph [77], Lin discloses that horizontal and vertical grooves 1010 and 1020 can be located on plate 830). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin’s teachings with claim 1 of Patent ‘912 together as a whole for generating concave grooves in order to permit the pills or tablets to easily slide from the surface of the medication stage tray.
Claim 4 of present Application ‘298 is similar to claim 2 of Patent ‘912. Thus, claim 4 of present Application ‘298 is anticipated by claim 2 of Patent ‘912.
Claim 5 of present Application ‘298 is similar to claim 3 of Patent ‘912. Thus, claim 5 of present Application ‘298 is anticipated by claim 3 of Patent ‘912.
Claim 6 of present Application ‘298 is similar to the combination of claims 2 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912. Thus, claim 6 of present Application ‘298 is anticipated by the combination of claims 2 and 10-13 of Patent ‘912.
Claim 7 of present Application ‘298 is similar to claim 4 of Patent ‘912. Thus, claim 7 of present Application ‘298 is anticipated by claim 4 of Patent ‘912.
Claim 8 of present Application ‘298 is similar to claim 5 of Patent ‘912. Thus, claim 8 of present Application ‘298 is anticipated by claim 5 of Patent ‘912.
Peruse the table below.
Present Application 18/778,298
US Patent No. 10,045,912
Claim 1.
A workstation for use in a system for medical dose preparation management, the workstation comprising: a base; a support platform at least partially defining a medication preparation staging region and having a support surface comprising a plurality of channels, at least one of the plurality of channels extending along an entire length of the support surface, and wherein each of the plurality of channels comprises a concave profile; and an imaging device supportably disposed relative to the base and having an imaging field encompassing at least a portion of the medication preparation staging region.
Claim 1.
A work station for use in a system for medical dose preparation management, comprising: a base; a support platform at least partially defining a medication preparation staging region and having a support surface that includes a plurality of grooves defined by an outside face of the support platform that are adapted to support at least a portion of a medication receptacle, wherein a first portion of the plurality of grooves extend in a first direction corresponding with a width of the support surface, and wherein a second portion of the plurality of grooves extend across said first portion of the plurality of grooves in a second direction corresponding with a length of the support surface; and, an imaging device supportably disposed relative to the base and having an imaging field encompassing at least a portion of the medication preparation staging region.
Claim 4.
The workstation according to claim 1, further comprising: a scale to output a weight corresponding to a medication receptacle supportably disposed on the support surface in the medication preparation staging region.
Claim 2.
A work station according to claim 1, further comprising: a scale to output a weight corresponding to a medication receptacle supportably disposed on said support surface in said medication preparation staging region.
Claim 5.
The workstation of claim 4, wherein the scale is included in the base.
Claim 3.
A work station according to claim 2, wherein said scale is included in said base.
Claim 6.
The workstation of claim 4 further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: receive the weight of the medication receptacle; calculate a deviation between the weight of the medication receptacle and an anticipated weight; and provide an indication if the deviation exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Claim 2.
A work station according to claim 1, further comprising: a scale to output a weight corresponding to a medication receptacle supportably disposed on said support surface in said medication preparation staging region.
Claim 10.
A work station according to claim 2, further comprising: a processor in operative communication with said scale; and, a memory in operative communication with the processor, wherein the processor is operable to compare the weight to an anticipated weight of the medication receptacle.
Claim 11.
A work station according to claim 10, wherein said weight and said anticipated weight are stored in said memory as a part of metadata corresponding to a medication dose order.
Claim 12.
A work station according to claim 11, wherein the processor is operable to calculate a deviation of the weight to the anticipated weight.
Claim 13.
A work station according to claim 12, wherein the deviation is compared to a threshold deviation, and wherein when the deviation exceeds a threshold deviation an alert is provided to a user.
Claim 7.
The workstation of claim 1, wherein the support platform is removably disposed relative to the base.
Claim 4.
A work station according to claim 3, wherein said support platform is removably disposed relative to said base.
Claim 8.
The workstation of claim 1 further comprising: a housing, wherein the imaging device is located at least partially within the housing; and a support member extending between the base and the housing for supportably disposing the imaging device relative to the base and the support platform.
Claim 5.
A work station according to claim 3, further comprising: a housing, wherein said imaging device is located at least partially within the housing; and, a support member extending between the base and the housing for supportably disposing the imaging device relative to the base and the support platform.
Claim 13.
A workstation for use in a system for medical dose preparation management, the workstation comprising: a base comprising a scale; and a support platform at least partially defining a medication preparation staging region and having a support surface comprising a plurality of channels, at least one of the plurality of channels extending along an entire length of the support surface; and an imaging device supportably disposed relative to the base and having an imaging field encompassing at least a portion of the medication preparation staging region, wherein the scale is configured to output a weight corresponding to a medication receptacle supportably disposed on the support surface in the medication preparation staging region, and wherein the workstation further comprises a processor configured to: receive the weight of the medication receptacle, calculate a deviation between the weight to an anticipated weight, and provide an indication if the deviation exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Claim 1.
A work station for use in a system for medical dose preparation management, comprising: a base; a support platform at least partially defining a medication preparation staging region and having a support surface that includes a plurality of grooves defined by an outside face of the support platform that are adapted to support at least a portion of a medication receptacle, wherein a first portion of the plurality of grooves extend in a first direction corresponding with a width of the support surface, and wherein a second portion of the plurality of grooves extend across said first portion of the plurality of grooves in a second direction corresponding with a length of the support surface; and, an imaging device supportably disposed relative to the base and having an imaging field encompassing at least a portion of the medication preparation staging region.
Claim 2.
A work station according to claim 1, further comprising: a scale to output a weight corresponding to a medication receptacle supportably disposed on said support surface in said medication preparation staging region.
Claim 3.
A work station according to claim 2, wherein said scale is included in said base.
Claim 10.
A work station according to claim 2, further comprising: a processor in operative communication with said scale; and, a memory in operative communication with the processor, wherein the processor is operable to compare the weight to an anticipated weight of the medication receptacle.
Claim 11.
A work station according to claim 10, wherein said weight and said anticipated weight are stored in said memory as a part of metadata corresponding to a medication dose order.
Claim 12.
A work station according to claim 11, wherein the processor is operable to calculate a deviation of the weight to the anticipated weight.
Claim 13.
A work station according to claim 12, wherein the deviation is compared to a threshold deviation, and wherein when the deviation exceeds a threshold deviation an alert is provided to a user.
Claim 14.
The workstation of claim 13, wherein the support platform is removably disposed relative to the base.
Claim 4.
A work station according to claim 3, wherein said support platform is removably disposed relative to said base.
Claim 15.
The workstation of claim 13 further comprising: a housing, wherein the imaging device is located at least partially within the housing; and a support member extending between the base and the housing for supportably disposing the imaging device relative to the base and the support platform.
Claim 5.
A work station according to claim 3, further comprising: a housing, wherein said imaging device is located at least partially within the housing; and, a support member extending between the base and the housing for supportably disposing the imaging device relative to the base and the support platform.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7341. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm.
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, Sath V Perungavoor can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLEN C WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights