DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 12/05/2024, 03/10/2025, 05/30/2025, 12/23/2025, and 01/14/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 8 recite, “…identifies or presumes drug from captured video…” However, it appears that the claim should instead recite, “…identifies or presumes a drug from captured video…” With this objection, line 5 would then read as “whether the drug packaged…”
Claim 7 recites, “The inspection device according to any one of claim 1 to 5, which is a drug packaging device…” It appears that the “claim” should be “claims.” Further, it appears that the passage should instead recite, “The inspection device according to any one of claim 1 to 5, further comprising a drug packaging device…”
Claim 8 recites, “a camera that takes pictures of drug for multiple patients, and identifies or presumes drug…” It appears that the passage should instead recite, “a camera that takes pictures of a drug for multiple patients, and identifies or presumes the drug…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 2-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the claim recites “a camera that takes pictures” but subsequently requires the device to be capable of “playing the captures video.” It is unclear whether the device captures static images (pictures) or a continuous stream (video). While video is comprised of pictures, the switch in terminology renders the scope of the device unclear. One having ordinary skill in the art would not recognize if the device required video recording capabilities, or just static image captures. For purposes of examination, the camera will be interpreted as one that is able to capture video such that line 2 of the claim reads, “…a camera that takes video…”
Further regarding claims 2 and 8, the claim recites the limitations “captured video” in line 3 and "the captured video" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Further regarding claims 2 and 8, the claim recites the limitation “wherein it is capable of playing the captured video and displaying it in a capturing order, and it is capable of selecting…” In the first instance (wherein it is capable), it is unclear whether “it” refers to the “inspection device” or the “camera.” In the second instance (displaying it), the pronoun appears to refer to “the captured video,” creating a situation where the same pronoun refers to different limitations within the same sentence. For purposes of examination, the passage will be interpreted as “wherein the camera is capable of playing the captured video and displaying the captured video in a capturing order, and the inspection device is capable of selecting…”
Further regarding claims 2 and 8, the term “presumes” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “presumes” 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. It is unclear as to how the camera is making the determination of the drug. For purposes of examination the limitation in question will be interpreted as, “…and identifies a drug for captured video…”
Regarding claims 3-7, the claims recite dependence upon now canceled claim 1, however, the first independent claim is claim 2. For purposes of examination, the claims will be treated as being dependent upon claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the term “similar in shape and size” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” 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. It is unclear what degree of variation constitutes “similar.” For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the “same in size and shape.”
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “The inspection device according to any one of claim 1 to 5, which is a drug packaging device…” It is unclear how the inspection device is not an inspection device, and is instead a drug packaging device. It appears that the passage should instead recite, “The inspection device according to any one of claim 1 to 5, further comprising a drug packaging device…” or some variation of such language. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “The inspection device according to any one of claim 1 to 5, further comprising a drug packaging device…” or equivalent language.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener (US 2009/0030722 A1) in view of Alexander (US 2021/0306600 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wiener teaches an inspection device (Shown in figures 1 and 6) comprising:
a camera (Figure 6, #603) that takes pictures of drug packages for multiple patients (Described in ¶'s [0032] - [0033] - "The digital imaging device 603 may be used to scan a sample of a physical product 607 that is associated with a prescription order 611."), and identifies or presumes drug from captured pictures (Described in ¶ [0030]);
the inspection device refers to prescription information (Described in ¶'s [0030] - [0032] & [0042]) and determines whether a drug packaged in a drug package should be administered to a patient (Described in ¶'s [0029] - [0033] & [0036]);
wherein it is capable of playing the captured pictures and displaying it in a capturing order (Described in ¶ [0033], [0036], & [0042]), and it is capable of selecting a patient and displaying only drugs taken by the patient (Described in ¶ [0042] - [0043]).
Wiener does not specifically teach a camera for capturing video of prescription drug preparation.
Alexander teaches a camera for capturing video of prescription drug preparation (Described in ¶ [0041], [0067], [0077]).
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 Wiener to incorporate the teachings of Alexander to include a camera for capturing video with the motivation of providing a means by which a continuous stream of images can be used to identify a prescription drug, as recognized by Alexander in ¶ [0077].
Regarding claim 3, Wiener further teaches when only the drugs taken by a selected patient, it is displayed in a state where a date of dosing and a dosing timing are identified (Described in ¶'s [0035] - [0038]. This is further illustrated in figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, Wiener teaches an inspection device (Shown in figures 1 and 6) comprising:
a camera (Figure 6, #603) that takes pictures of drug for multiple patients (Described in ¶'s [0032] - [0033] - "The digital imaging device 603 may be used to scan a sample of a physical product 607 that is associated with a prescription order 611."), and identifies or presumes drug from captured pictures (Described in ¶ [0030]);
the inspection device refers to prescription information (Described in ¶'s [0030] - [0032] & [0042]) and determines whether a drug should be administered to a patient (Described in ¶'s [0029] - [0033] & [0036]);
wherein it is capable of playing the captured pictures and displaying it in a capturing order (Described in ¶ [0033], [0036], & [0042]), and it is capable of selecting a patient and displaying only drugs taken by the patient (Described in ¶ [0042] - [0043]).
Wiener does not specifically teach a camera for capturing video of prescription drug preparation.
Alexander teaches a camera for capturing video of prescription drug preparation (Described in ¶ [0041], [0067], [0077]).
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 Wiener to incorporate the teachings of Alexander to include a camera for capturing video with the motivation of providing a means by which a continuous stream of images can be used to identify a prescription drug, as recognized by Alexander in ¶ [0077].
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener in view of Alexander, and in further view of Yuyama (US 6,324,253).
Regarding claim 4, Wiener in view of Alexander does not specifically teach by designating a specific drug package for a specific patient, it is capable of displaying drug packages captured before and after the drug package.
Yuyama teaches by designating a specific drug package for a specific patient, it is capable of displaying drug packages captured before and after the drug package (Described in col 2, line 58 - col 3, line 38).
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 Wiener in view of Alexander to incorporate the teachings of Yuyama to include displaying information about specific drugs with the motivation of providing a device that can monitor inspection data after tablets are delivered to the patient, as recognized By Yuyama in col 1, lines 55-60.
Regarding claim 5, Wiener in view of Alexander does not specifically teach according to a determination of the inspecting, in a case where there is a problem in the drug package, drug packages captured before and after the drug package will be automatically displayed.
Yuyama teaches according to a determination of the inspecting, in a case where there is a problem in the drug package, drug packages captured before and after the drug package will be automatically displayed (Described in col 3, lines 17-38 and col 15, line 20 - col 16, line 53).
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 Wiener in view of Alexander to incorporate the teachings of Yuyama to include displaying information about specific drugs with the motivation of providing a device that can monitor inspection data after tablets are delivered to the patient, as recognized By Yuyama in col 1, lines 55-60.
Regarding claim 7, Wiener in view of Alexander does not specifically teach which is a drug packaging device capable of discharging necessary drugs based on prescription information, packaging and discharging each dose.
Yuyama teaches which is a drug packaging device capable of discharging necessary drugs based on prescription information, packaging and discharging each dose (Described in claim 1 and col 1, line 55 - col 2, line 57).
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 Wiener in view of Alexander to incorporate the teachings of Yuyama to include displaying information about specific drugs with the motivation of providing a device that can monitor inspection data after tablets are delivered to the patient, as recognized By Yuyama in col 1, lines 55-60.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener in view of Alexander, in further view of Dulong (US 2001/0056358 A1), and in further view of Yuyama.
Regarding claim 6, Wiener in view of Alexander does not specifically teach where in a case where the drugs are similar in shape and size, it is capable of giving a display calling attention and/or a sound warning.
Dulong teaches where in a case where the drugs are similar in shape and size, it is capable of giving a display calling attention and/or a sound warning (Described in the abstract).
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 Wiener in view of Alexander to incorporate the teachings of Dulong to include an alert in the case when certain drug characteristics are detected with the motivation of reducing the number of medical errors, as recognized by Dulong in the abstract.
Examiner’s Note: Due to the multiple dependency of claim 7, an additional rejection of claim 7 is provided below.
Regarding claim 7, Wiener in view of Alexander and Dulong does not specifically teach which is a drug packaging device capable of discharging necessary drugs based on prescription information, packaging and discharging each dose.
Yuyama teaches which is a drug packaging device capable of discharging necessary drugs based on prescription information, packaging and discharging each dose (Described in claim 1 and col 1, line 55 - col 2, line 57).
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 Wiener in view of Alexander and Dulong to incorporate the teachings of Yuyama to include displaying information about specific drugs with the motivation of providing a device that can monitor inspection data after tablets are delivered to the patient, as recognized By Yuyama in col 1, lines 55-60.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bear (US 2014/0188272 A1) teaches a device for remote visualization of the storage compartments in a medication distribution apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731