DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on December 30, 2024. Claims 1-13 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 5 recites “the case” in line 2 which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 10 recites “the initial inventory” in line 2 which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 11 recites “the correct location” in line 2 which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-13 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.
The term “real-time” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “real-time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to a supply chain management system.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mental Processes
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “log inventory usage using RFID data; ship replenishment devices to the healthcare facility; and restock the transportation and storage device.” are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations are directed to restocking of transportation and storage device in light of the logging of inventory usage. These limitations can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, and judgment of the logged inventory usage data.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “transport medical devices to a healthcare facility; log inventory usage using RFID data; ship replenishment devices to the healthcare facility; and restock the transportation and storage device.” are directed to the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the limitations are directed to business relations and sales activities with respect to inventory usage/tracking and replenishment of medical devices.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of medical devices, replenishment devices, and transportation and storage device amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. Dependent claim 2 recites “mobile app”, dependent claims 3-4 recite “medical devices”, and dependent claims 5-7, 11 and 13 recite “transportation and storage device”. Dependent claims 2-7, 11, and 13 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. A system claim needs to recite the physical structures that make up the system, e.g., a processor, a memory, an input device, an output device, etc. for a computer-based system. In the instant application, independent claim 6 does not recite physical structures are included in the system which would enable a practitioner to make and use the system, the system claim is considered to be non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pleshek et al. US Publication 20150029001 A1.
Claim 1:
As per claim 1, Pleshek teaches a supply chain management system to:
transport medical devices to a healthcare facility (paragraphs 0042-0043 “FIGS. 4 and 5 are flow diagrams illustrating an exemplary medical device distribution process according to at least one embodiment of the present technology. The distribution process 400 begins in step 405 where the mobile RFID container 10 is stocked with items at a distribution center. For example, in the context of a medical procedure, the container may be stocked with medical devices of varying sizes and configurations as well as one or more surgical tools that can be used to implant the devices during surgery. After the mobile RFID container 10 is stocked with the appropriate items, the container is closed…” and “Once the mobile RFID container 10 is stocked with the appropriate item(s), it is shipped from the distribution center to the end user. (Step 410) In the context of a medical procedure, the end user may be a hospital or surgical center, for example. The mobile RFID container 10 can be shipped via a common carrier, such as Federal Express or UPS, for example. Alternatively, the mobile RFID container 10 may be transported to the end user by a field representative, as is common in the medical device industry.”);
log inventory usage using RFID data (paragraphs 0044-0045 “FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating certain aspects of an exemplary process for distributing items from the mobile RFID container during a surgical procedure. In step 505, the mobile RFID container 10 is opened. For example, the field representative may open the mobile RFID container at the beginning of the surgical procedure or at such time as may be deemed appropriate. Next, in step 510, one or more items are removed from (and/or added) to the container during the medical procedure. For example, several devices, e.g., implants of varying sizes, may be removed from the container. During medical procedure, the appropriate device(s) may be implanted and unused devices may be return to or left in the container. While the container 10 is at the end user, it may perform one or more RFID scans to collect scan data (i.e., RFID tag data) concerning its contents. For example, an RFID scan may be automatically triggered when the door is closed following the medical procedure.” and “The scan data is then transmitted (Step 530) to the remote device 41 where it can be used to generate and/or update appropriate records (e.g., container inventory, discrepancies, locations, restocking, invoicing, other recordable events, etc.). (See, e.g., Steps 540-550). The mobile RFID container 10 may also transmit location data with the scan data to allow the remote device to coordinate the current inventory of the mobile RFID container with its location. For example, the data may be used to determine what items were used during the surgery for invoicing purposes.”);
ship replenishment devices to the healthcare facility (paragraph 0046 “…Similarly, in step 545, the ERP system may be configured to update appropriate inventory records for the specific container based on the data received from the mobile RFID container. Further, in step 550, the ERP system may be configured to automatically schedule replenishment/restocking of the container based on the data received from the mobile RFID container.”);
and restock the transportation and storage device (paragraph 0047 “Returning to FIG. 4, once the medical procedure is completed, the mobile RFID container 10 may be returned to the manufacturer or distribution center. (Steps 425, 430). Once at the manufacturer or distribution center, the mobile RFID container 10 may be restocked with the appropriate item(s). (Step 405). Advantageously, the scan data is automatically transmitted to the remote device 41 when the door 16 of the mobile RFID container 10 is closed following the medical procedure. As a result, the appropriate invoicing, inventory and restocking records can be generated before the mobile RFID container 10 is received at the manufacturer or distribution center. Thus, the invoicing process can be expedited, and the manufacturer or distribution center can take steps to ensure that the appropriate items are in inventory for restocking the mobile RFID container 10 upon its receipt at the manufacturer or distribution center.”).
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, Pleshek teaches the supply chain management system of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein the RFID tags of the transportation and storage device are scanned every time the case is opened and closed (paragraphs 0018 and 0033).
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, Pleshek teaches the supply chain management of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein the RFID tags of the transportation and storage device are scanned at predetermined time intervals (paragraph 0018).
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, Pleshek teaches the supply chain management system of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein an initial inventory of the transportation and storage device is established as a baseline prior to shipment to the healthcare facility (paragraphs 0042-0043).
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, Pleshek teaches the supply chain management system of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein an invoice may be generated upon onsite comparison of the initial inventory to a subsequent inventory (paragraphs 0045-0047).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleshek et al. US Publication 20150029001 A1 in view of Haapoja et al. US Publication 20220383396 A1.
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, Pleshek teaches the supply chain management system of claim 1 as described above but does not teach wherein there is an additional step of cross-referencing inventory usage using QR codes and a mobile app. However, Haapoja teaches Build and Update a Virtual Store based on a Physical Store and further teaches, “In some embodiments, the extracted image or segment includes a computer-readable product identifier (e.g., a color-coded label, QR code, bar code, or another pictorial identifier). The analytics server 318 can query the inventory store in the platform database 308 based on the identifier to retrieve more detailed product information (e.g., a high-resolution 3D representation of a particular product, a 360-degree view rendering of the product, product specifications, product quantity information, etc.). In some embodiments, the analytics server 318 uses supplemental information from the product positioning capture device 370 to determine the product identifier and/or product positioning within the physical store. Accordingly, according to various embodiments, a product identifier can be an alphanumeric identifier or another non-pictorial code readable by a particular product positioning capture device 370. In some embodiments, the e-commerce platform 306 can maintain a cross-reference table that associates pictorial product identifiers with non-pictorial identifiers such that information from the captured images can be linked to, via the cross-referenced identifiers, and supplemented by information received from product positioning capture devices 370.” (paragraph 0109). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Pleshek to include wherein there is an additional step of cross-referencing inventory usage using QR codes and a mobile app as taught by Haapoja in order maintain accurate records with respect to products and their corresponding identifications.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleshek et al. US Publication 20150029001 A1 in view of Hunt et al. US Publication 20210228360 A1.
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, Pleshek teaches the supply chain management system of claim 1 as described above but does not teach wherein the medical devices are sterile packed screws for sacroiliac joint fusion. However, Hunt teaches Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Systems and Methods and further teaches, “The standard treatment for SI joint pain is a sacroiliac joint fusion. This procedure is designed to eliminate movement of the SI joint by fusing together the ilium and sacrum. Typically, sacroiliac fusion relies on the user of screws or rods that are implanted across the SI joint. The screws or rods hold the bones together allowing the bones to fuse.” (paragraph 0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Pleshek to include wherein the medical devices are sterile packed screws for sacroiliac joint fusion in order to access screws to perform the sacroiliac joint fusion procedure.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleshek et al. US Publication 20150029001 A1 in view of Katzman et al. US Publication 20140277165 A1.
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, Pleshek teaches the supply chain management system of claim 1 as described above but does not teach wherein the medical devices are sterile single use instruments for performing sacroiliac joint fusions. However, Katzman teaches Sacroiliac Joint Stabilization Method and further teaches, “Referring to FIG. 3, there is illustrated surgical kit 15 and the various instruments of the kit used to carry out the sacroiliac joint fusion procedure of the present invention. Kit 15 includes an enclosure 32 having a base and a removable lid. Contained within enclosure 32 are a set of at least four dilation tubes 36, a drill guide 38, a drill 40, a k-wire 42, an implant inserter 44, and optionally, a joint locator 41. Kit 15 may also include a bone fusion promoting substance such as bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) or stem cell-containing material. Kit 15 may further include at least four sacroiliac joint implants or dowels 34 (including a pair of implants 28 for inferior insertion and a pair of implants 30 for superior insertion); however, in most instances, dowels 34 are stored and transported separately from kit 15.” (paragraph 0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Pleshek to include wherein the medical devices are sterile single use instruments for performing sacroiliac joint fusions as taught by Katzman in order to reduce the possibility of infections.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleshek et al. US Publication 20150029001 A1 in view of Sweeney et al. US Publication 20180303577 A1.
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, Pleshek teaches the supply chain management system of claim 1 as described above but does not teach wherein a sales representative or employee can tag QR codes to log specific inventory used in a surgery case. However, Sweeney teaches an Integrated Surgical Implant Delivery System and Method and further teaches, “As another example, the usage module 421 may be configured to identify that a medical device has been used based on usage information manually entered by operating room personnel or sales staff. In response to tracking usage of a medical device, the usage module 421 is configured to generate usage data. For example, in some embodiments, the usage module 421 may generate a device usage ticket (“DUT”) when a medical device has been used such as in an operating room for a patient operation. In certain embodiments, the usage module 421 may also require hospital personnel, such as operating room doctors or staff, to sign or otherwise confirm the DUT (e.g., by electrically signing the DUT, by physically signing and scanning in the DUT, by clicking an acknowledgement box, etc.). The usage module 421 compiles the usage data and may be configured to share the usage data with other modules of the monitoring system 110. To illustrate, the usage module 421 may share the usage data with the inventory module 420, such that the inventory module 420 can update the inventory database 426.” (paragraph 0062) and “Process 550 includes detecting the use of the medical device (step 552). The use of the medical device may be detected in an operating room by a monitoring system. The medical device may include an RFID tag readable by an RFID reader, a bar code readable by a camera and monitoring system, or any other identifier configured to be readable by a monitoring system. In some implementations, the medical device usage may be determined based on manually entered usage information by operating room personnel or sales staff.” (paragraph 0097). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Pleshek to include wherein a sales representative or employee can tag QR codes to log specific inventory used in a surgery case as taught by Sweeney in order to allow a user to be a part in the tracking of used inventory.
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, Pleshek and Sweeney teach the supply chain management system of claim 8 as described above and Pleshek further teaches wherein missing RFID tags may be cross-referenced with tagged QR codes to verify specific inventory used during the surgery case (paragraphs 0044-0045).
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, Pleshek teaches teach the supply chain management system of claim 1 as described above but does not teach wherein replenishment inventory is shipped in real-time directly to the healthcare facility rather than returning the transportation and storage device to a manufacturer or a distribution center for refill. However, Sweeney teaches an Integrated Surgical Implant Delivery System and Method and further teaches, “…As another example, a hospital may communicate directly with a manufacturer of medical devices to receive a stock of the medical devices and to submit a purchase order when the hospital uses one or more of the medical devices. The manufacturer may then fulfill the order through a sales representative or distributor vendor, which provides the medical devices to the hospital…” (paragraph 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Pleshek to include wherein replenishment inventory is shipped in real-time directly to the healthcare facility rather than returning the transportation and storage device to a manufacturer or a distribution center for refill as taught by Sweeney in order to fulfill the purchase order.
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, Pleshek and Sweeney teach the supply chain management system of claim 11 as described above and Pleshek further teaches wherein GPS data is cross-referenced to ensure replenishment inventory is directed to the correct location (paragraphs 0045-0046).
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, Pleshek and Sweeney teach the supply chain management system of claim 11 as described above and Sweeney further teaches wherein inventory replenishment associated with the transportation and storage device is performed locally by a sales representative or employee affiliated with the healthcare facility by adding scanned RFID tags to existing inventory of the transportation and storage device (paragraphs 0112 and 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Pleshek to include wherein inventory replenishment associated with the transportation and storage device is performed locally by a sales representative or employee affiliated with the healthcare facility by adding scanned RFID tags to existing inventory of the transportation and storage device as taught by Sweeney in order to restock or replenish items in a timely fashion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clouser et al. US Publication 20190340855 A1 RFID Scanning Device
Clouser discloses systems, devices and methods for performing inventory management using RFID technology. The system includes a double-door box for receiving one or more items containing RFID tags. Items are scanned against a baseline content data to confirm all items are present and whether any items have expired. The box has security features to prevent unauthorized access to its contents and create an audit trail of access. Access to the box may be granted when two users present separate authorized RFID-enabled cards, wrist bands, or other items. Multiple locking features provide for additional security. A drop box mechanism on top of the housing allows for items to be deposited into the box without the same security protocols needed for accessing items. Scanning, authorization, and notification functions may be controlled remotely by an outside server or locally by a processing unit contained within the box itself.
Agrawal et al. US Patent 10817832 B1 Automated Replenishment System for Personal Medical Kits
Agrawal discloses the MedicSMART system can be a replenishment system for personal medical kits. The personal medical kit can house an inventory of personal use medical supplies within a container that is in a location personally associated with a user. Each medical supply can have a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag affixed thereon. The payment artifact can be used for the user's electronic transactions. The MedicSMART system can be configured to automatically replenish the inventory of the personal medical kit using a client device, supply thresholds, supplier data, and a server. The client device can be installed within the container to collect data from the RFID tags. The supply thresholds can define minimum values for the medical supplies. The supplier data can define suppliers for purchasing the medical supplies. The server can be configured to automatically order medical supplies to maintain the personal medical kit in an acceptable state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4530. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681