CTNF 18/903,122 CTNF 101447 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 10/01/2024 was considered by the examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. A certified copy of application JP 2023-175440 was filed on 12/01/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinney et al. (US 7123989 B2) , hereinafter Pinney, in view of Chesterton et al. (WO 2008/085673 A1), hereinafter Chesterton . Regarding claim 1 , Pinney discloses a medication support device (col. 2, line 52 to col. 3, line 4; Dispenser 100) comprising: a container to store a medicine package in which a plurality of medicines are packed (col. 3, lines 32-47; Fig. 3, container 214) ; a pickup device to pick up the medicine package from the container (col. 3, line 63 to col. 4, line 14; Fig. 4, picker 208) ; a conveyor to convey the medicine package picked up by the pickup device (col. 3, lines 32-47; Y-axis supports 202a 202d, the Z-axis support 204, and the X-axis support 222 combine to provide a support structure allowing the picker assembly 208 to travel to nearly any location within the housing 102) ; a medicine dispenser including a prescribed position to which the medicine package conveyed by the conveyor is dispensed (col. 4, lines 34-47; Fig. 3, dispense drawer 224) ; a medication-related information reader to read medication-related information including at least a name of a patient who takes medicines and a time of medication (col. 4, line 56 to col. 5, line 10, Fig. 4, Barcode reader 210 reads label 402 including indicia identifying contents of bag 212 and customer for which the bag is intended. Including additional information relevant to customer and prescription bag is also disclosed, would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to include medication administration instructions, including schedules and times) ; and processing circuitry (128) to control a medicine dispensing operation in which the medicine package picked up from the container is dispensed to the medicine dispenser, based on the medication-related information read by the medication-related information reader (col. 4, line 47 to col. 5, line 24) . Pinney does not disclose skipping a process with an abnormality and make the medicine dispensing operation continue after the medicine dispensing operation starts. Chesterton disclose a dispensing system that skips a process with an abnormality and make the medicine dispensing operation continue after the medicine dispensing operation starts (para. [0060]; when picking error is encountered the pick location is skipped and process continues) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dispensing system of Pinney and incorporate the teachings in Chesterton of skipping a process with an abnormality and make the medicine dispensing operation continue after the medicine dispensing operation starts to improve throughput and avoid complete system stoppage due to a single picking error (Chesterton: para. [0061]) . Regarding claim 2 , Pinney in view of Chesterton, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Chesterton further discloses what Pinney lacks, specifically, after the medicine dispensing operation is all completed, the processing circuitry gives notification of the process with the abnormality having occurred during the medicine dispensing operation (para. [0060]; labeling bagged order of pharmaceuticals as an exception after all pharmaceuticals are collected contemplates notification after completion of operation) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dispensing system of Pinney in view of Chesterton and incorporate the teachings in Chesterton of the processing circuitry gives notification of the process with the abnormality having occurred during the medicine dispensing operation after medicine dispensing operation is all completed to alert pharmacy personnel of the existence of an incomplete order marked as an exception in the exception collector that needs intervention. As the exception status is tracked throughout the process, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the notification to be transmitted once the process is complete and the marked package is available in the exception collector. Regarding claim 3 , Pinney in view of Chesterton, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Chesterton further discloses what Pinney lacks, specifically, when a picking-up operation of the medicine package from the container is not successful, the medicine dispensing operation for a next person to which the medicine package is to be dispensed is performed (para. [0060]; when picking error is encountered the pick location is skipped and process continues to the next pharmaceutical to be picked) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dispensing system of Pinney and incorporate the teachings in Chesterton of, when a picking-up operation of the medicine package from the container is not successful, the medicine dispensing operation for a next person to which the medicine package is to be dispensed is performed to improve throughput and avoid complete system stoppage due to a single picking error (Chesterton: para. [0061]) . Regarding claim 4 , Pinney in view of Chesterton, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Chesterton further discloses what Pinney lacks, specifically, when dispensing the medicine package to the prescribed position of the medicine dispenser is not successful, the medicine dispensing operation for a next person to which the medicine package is to be dispensed is performed (para. [0060]; when picking error is encountered the pick location is skipped and process continues to the next pharmaceutical to be picked. When picking operation is disrupted dispensing operation will also be unsuccessful). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dispensing system of Pinney and incorporate the teachings in Chesterton of, when dispensing the medicine package to the prescribed position of the medicine dispenser is not successful, the medicine dispensing operation for a next person to which the medicine package is to be dispensed is performed to improve throughput and avoid complete system stoppage due to a single picking error (Chesterton: para. [0061]) . Regarding claim 7 , Pinney in view of Chesterton, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Chesterton further discloses what Pinney lacks, specifically, the processing circuitry uses a pause mode to pause the medication support device when the medication support device operates abnormally or an operation continue mode to continue the medicine dispensing operation until the medicine dispensing operation for all persons to which the medicine package is to be dispensed is completed after the medicine dispensing operation is started, and wherein, when the medication support device operates abnormally, the processing circuitry switches a mode between the pause mode and the operation continue mode (para. [0061]-[0062]; during an exception a task can paused awaiting user intervention and continue after intervention or controller can identify another pick location and continue operation of a pick head). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dispensing system of Pinney and incorporate the teachings in Chesterton of using a pause mode to pause the medication support device when the medication support device operates abnormally or an operation continue mode to continue the medicine dispensing operation until the medicine dispensing operation for all persons to which the medicine package is to be dispensed is completed after the medicine dispensing operation is started, and wherein, when the medication support device operates abnormally, the processing circuitry switches a mode between the pause mode and the operation continue mode to provide additional flexibility in handling exceptions during the picking process. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the benefit of providing a pause mode for exceptions that require user intervention and a continue mode for exceptions that cannot be resolved automatically (Chesterton: para. [0061]-[0062]). Regarding claim 10 , Pinney in view of Chesterton, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Chesterton further discloses what Pinney lacks, specifically, when the medicine dispensing operation is performed again after the medicine dispensing operation is completed, the medicine dispensing operation is performed again for a position to which the medicine package is not successfully dispensed due to an abnormality in the medication support device ( para. [0060]; After placing the incomplete bagged pharmaceutical in the exceptions collector the pick head 26 is operated to pick only the missing pharmaceutical) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dispensing system of Pinney and incorporate the teachings in Chesterton of performing the medicine dispensing operation again, after the medicine dispensing operation is completed, for a position to which the medicine package is not successfully dispensed due to an abnormality in the medication support device to ensure all required prescriptions are processed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that system efficiency is improved by processing only affected patient orders . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinney (US 7123989 B2) in view of Chesterton (WO 2008/085673 A1), and in further view of Schoonen et al. (US 6230927 B1) hereinafter Schoonen . Regarding claim 5 , Pinney in view of Chesterton, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Pinney in view of Chesterton does not disclose when the medication-related information is not read by the medication-related information reader, the processing circuitry excludes a related object from an object to which the medicine package is to be dispensed. Schoonen discloses an automatic drug dispenser, when the medication-related information is not read by the medication-related information reader, the processing circuitry excludes a related object from an object to which the medicine package is to be dispensed (col. 6, line 45 to col. 7, line 8; when identification code of cartridge does not match with memory, removal of drugs from the specific cartridge is blocked. Read code not matching and inability to read code effectively results in the same outcome). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dispensing system Pinney in view of Chesterton, further incorporate the teachings in Schoonen of the processing circuitry excluding a related object from an object to which the medicine package is to be dispensed, when the medication-related information is not read by the medication-related information reader to reduce the chance of dispensing the wrong prescription. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the benefit of excluding the object causing the error as a valid source until further investigation and reset (Schoonen: col. 6, lines 45-59) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinney (US 7123989 B2) in view of Chesterton (WO 2008/085673 A1), and in further view of Einav et al. (US 10964154 B2) hereinafter Einav . Regarding claim 6 , Pinney in view of Chesterton, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Pinney in view of Chesterton does not disclose a sensor to detect the medicine package that is dropped; and a notifier to give notification of a droppage location of the medicine package. Einav discloses a medication dispensing system with a sensor to detect the medicine package that is dropped; and a notifier to give notification of a droppage location of the medicine package (col. 30, line 54 to col. 31, line 12; Fig. 1, sensor 122 detects dropped medication) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dispensing system Pinney in view of Chesterton, further incorporate the teachings in Einav of a sensor to detect the medicine package that is dropped; and a notifier to give notification of a droppage location of the medicine package to improve usability of the dispensing system and reduce the liability of the pharmacy by reducing the number of lost drugs as using a camera to detect location of dropped medication can provide tracking records as well as improve the response time to detect recover the dropped medication ( Einav: col. 30, line 65 to col. 31, line 12) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 8 and 9 are 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. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cacioppo et al. (US 11551183) discloses methods for managing exceptions to orders collected by autonomous vehicles, where upon receiving an exception, in cases where the target item barcode is unscannable, the vehicle will skip the item and continue picking other items in the order. Shorted orders are redirected to a staging area, and outstanding items are resolved by generating a new picklist that retrieves the missing items, (col. 5, line 60 to col. 6, line. 13; col. 8, lines 28-44; col. 9, line 60 to col. 10, line 19; Fig. 4). Einav (US 10964154) also discloses the dispensing system avoids an initiation of medication extraction in case reader detects some unexpected input from a chip of the container. On such exceptions, dispensing can proceed by moving head automatically to another container, without proceeding a faulty dispensing process to increase usability, by reducing fault handling by an operator (col. 21, lines 10-32). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMESGEN M. MARU whose telephone number is (571)272-0039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM. 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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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. /TEMESGEN M. MARU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655 /JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 2 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 3 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 4 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 5 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 6 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 7 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 8 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 9 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 10 Art Unit: 3655 Application/Control Number: 18/903,122 Page 11 Art Unit: 3655
Prosecution Insights