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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2024 has been considered and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell (USP 11,066,240; hereinafter Maxwell), in view of Reese (USP 6,711,460; hereinafter Reese).
Regarding Claim 1:
Maxwell discloses a system for providing medication to a customer, comprising: a movable structure, the movable structure comprising: a robotic arm configured to retrieve and release a container containing the medication (Maxwell, Column 3 Lines 11-22, Maxwell disclose an articulated arm robot system coupled to a linear actuator system for providing medication packages); and
a computing system comprising at least one processor coupled to a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Maxwell, Column 5, Lines 11-34, Maxwell discloses a central computer for controlling the automated pharmacy system), causes the computing system to perform operations comprising:
capturing identifying data regarding the customer…(Maxwell, Column 3 Line 65-66, Maxwell discloses capturing facial features of the customer for identifying); and
retrieving the medication associated with the customer by moving the robotic arm based on predetermined mapping, the predetermined mapping comprising logged locations of filled orders, the logged locations comprising a location of the container containing the medication (Maxwell, Claim 1, Maxwell discloses moving the robotic arm to the plurality of bin containing prepared medication).
Maxwell fails to explicitly disclose capturing identifying data regarding the customer via the microphone and a microphone coupled to the robotic arm.
However Reese, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls, discloses a microphone coupled to the robotic arm (Reese, Column 7 Lines 8-23, Reese discloses a microphone connected to the user interface); and capturing identifying data regarding the customer via the microphone (Reese, Column 7 Lines 8-23, Reese discloses a identifying the customer based on biometric reading devices which include the microphone).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maxwell to include a microphone for user identification as disclosed by Reese with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this combination in order to further identify the customer with biometric readings, Reese Column 7 Lines 11-22.
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 1.
Maxwell fails to explicitly disclose wherein identifying the customer based on the identifying data further comprises: requesting, from a backend system, information regarding one or more users; comparing the identifying data to the requested information; and in response to the identifying data matching information associated with a user of the one or more users, identifying the customer as the user.
However Reese discloses wherein identifying the customer based on the identifying data further comprises: requesting, from a backend system, information regarding one or more users; comparing the identifying data to the requested information; and in response to the identifying data matching information associated with a user of the one or more users, identifying the customer as the user (Reese, Column 7, Lines 20-24, Reese discloses receiving customer biometric inputs such as fingerprints, iris features, and facial features in order to confirm the identity of the customer for receiving prescriptions).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maxwell to include identifying customers through a backend system and stored customer data as disclosed by Reese with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this combination in order to improve isolated pharmacy efficiencies, see at least Reese Column 2 Lines 21-36.
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 1.
Maxwell further discloses wherein the robotic arm comprises: a plurality of joints comprising a first joint and a second joint (Maxwell, Column 3 Lines 11-22, Maxwell disclose an articulated arm robot system coupled to a linear actuator system);
a robotic manipulator configured to retrieve and release the container containing the medication (Maxwell, Column 3 Lines 11-22, Maxwell discloses a gripping end effector for medication manipulation), the robotic manipulator comprising:
a jaw, a first block coupled to the jaw, a jaw joint coupled to the first block, and a second block coupled to the jaw joint (Maxwell, Column 3 Lines 11-22, Fig. 3, Maxwell discloses the end effector being a clamp device with two blocks configured to clamp on the medication package); and
a plurality of segments comprising: a first segment coupled to the second block, and a second segment coupled to the first segment via the first joint, the second segment further coupled to the second joint (Maxwell, Column 3 Lines 11-22, Fig. 3, Maxwell discloses the articulated robot to include a plurality of joints connected to the gripping end effector).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 1.
Maxwell fails to explicitly disclose requesting verifying information from the customer; comparing the verifying information to protected information associated with a user in a backend system; and in response to the verifying information matching the protected information, determining that the customer is authorized.
However Reese discloses requesting verifying information from the customer; comparing the verifying information to protected information associated with a user in a backend system; and in response to the verifying information matching the protected information, determining that the customer is authorized (Reese, Column 7, Lines 20-24, Reese discloses receiving customer biometric inputs such as fingerprints, iris features, and facial features in order to confirm the identity of the customer for receiving prescriptions).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maxwell to include identifying customers through further biometric identifiers as disclosed by Reese with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this combination in order to improve isolated pharmacy efficiencies, see at least Reese Column 2 Lines 21-36.
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 5.
Maxwell fails to explicitly disclose wherein the protected information comprises at least one of a medical history of the customer, a current medication of the customer, or a current allergy of the customer.
However Reese discloses wherein the protected information comprises at least one of a medical history of the customer, a current medication of the customer, or a current allergy of the customer (Reese, Column 13, Lines 14-18, Column 20, Lines 53-57, Maxwell discloses patient medical history, allergies of the patient, and current medication of the patient is stored on the pharmacist computer, which is protected (Reese, Column 12 Line 61 – Column 13 Line 13)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maxwell to include identifying historical medical information for the customer as disclosed by Reese with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this combination in order to improve isolated pharmacy efficiencies, see at least Reese Column 2 Lines 21-36.
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 1.
Maxwell further discloses wherein associating the customer with the medication order further comprises: identifying the medication order based on the customer (Maxwell, Column 5 Lines 11-15, Maxwell discloses identifying the medication based on the customer);
determining whether the medication order is ready (Maxwell, Column 5, Lines 10-20, Maxwell discloses determining the prescription prepared for the customer and the customer has been consulted); and
in response to the medication order not being ready, commanding the robotic arm to perform operations to complete the medication order (Maxwell, Column 5, Lines 10-20, Maxwell discloses the robotic device finishes the order of delivering the medication once the order has been prepared).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 1.
Maxwell fails to explicitly disclose determining medication details associated with the medication; comparing the medication details to at least one of a medical history of the customer, a current medication of the customer, or a current allergy of the customer; determining one or more issues based on the comparison; and informing the customer of the one or more issues.
However, Reese discloses determining medication details associated with the medication; comparing the medication details to at least one of a medical history of the customer, a current medication of the customer, or a current allergy of the customer; determining one or more issues based on the comparison; and informing the customer of the one or more issues (Reese, Column 20, Lines 41-64, Reese discloses determining the medication details of the user prescription and comparing the prescription to patient history, current prescriptions, and allergies of the patient then determines any potential drug interactions with the newly prescribed medication and informs the user, see at least Column 21 Lines 19-37).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maxwell to include identifying historical medical information for the customer and comparing information to the current medication package as disclosed by Reese with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this combination in order to improve isolated pharmacy efficiencies, see at least Reese Column 2 Lines 21-36.
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 8.
Reese discloses wherein determining one or more issues comprises at least one of: determining that the medication or the active ingredient of the medication would have an adverse reaction with the current medication (Reese, Column 20, Lines 41-64, Reese discloses determining potential drug interactions with current patient medication); or
determining that the current allergy comprises the medication or the active ingredient of the medication (Reese, Column 20, Lines 41-64, Reese discloses determining the patient allergies associated with the prescribed medication).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maxwell to include determining drug interactions or allergies of the patient as disclosed by Reese with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this combination in order to improve isolated pharmacy efficiencies, see at least Reese Column 2 Lines 21-36.
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 8.
Reese discloses wherein informing the customer comprises broadcasting the one or more issues via a speaker coupled to the robotic arm (Reese, Column 7, Lines 25-39, Reese discloses broadcasting the prescription information (i.e. consultation) through a speaker connected to the user interface, while Reese does not explicitly disclose the speaker being coupled to the robotic arm, one of ordinary skill in the art would include an auditory delivery system for consulting the patient of prescription issues and information with the auditory delivery system located where the medication meets the patient).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maxwell to include a speaker to communicate with the patient as disclosed by Reese with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this combination in order to improve isolated pharmacy efficiencies, see at least Reese Column 2 Lines 21-36.
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 1.
Maxwell discloses further comprising a backend system communicatively coupled to the computing system and structured to store information associated with one or more users in a database (Maxwell, Column 4, Lines 29-35, Maxwell discloses private user medical information is stored on an external cloud server coupled to the central computer of the automated pharmacy system).
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 1.
Maxwell discloses wherein the database comprises a first database and a second database, the first database storing identifying information associated with the one or more users and the second database storing verifying information associated with the one or more users (Maxwell, Column 4, Lines 29-35, Maxwell discloses private user medical information is stored on an external cloud server coupled to the central computer of the automated pharmacy system and customer payment information may be stored at the kiosk (i.e. customer interface)).
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 11.
Maxwell discloses wherein the backend system is a cloud-based computing system (Maxwell, Column 4, Lines 29-35, Maxwell discloses private user medical information is stored on an external cloud server coupled to the central computer of the automated pharmacy system).
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Maxwell and Reese disclose the system of claim 11.
Maxwell discloses wherein the backend system is further configured to compile profiles of customer data from the information stored in the database (Maxwell, Column 4, Lines 29-35, Maxwell discloses information such as customer payment, may be stored at the kiosk (i.e. customer interface)).
Regarding Claim 15:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 16:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 17:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 18:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 19:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 10 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 20:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 14 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 2 includes limitations which the examiner has found to not be disclosed by Maxwell or Reese with such limitations including at least “determining the direction of the customer based on an audio signal captured by the microphone from the customer” and “manipulating the robotic arm such that the microphone faces the customer based on the determined direction”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656