DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 01/28/25, with revised claims filed on 08/19/25.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 32, 37-40, 42, and 44 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continuity/Priority Date
Status of this application as a continuation of US Application 18/459,794, filed 09/01/23, which is a continuation of US Application 16/133,603, filed 09/17/18 is acknowledged. Accordingly, a priority date of 09/17/18 has been given to this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 is blurry/illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 32, 37-40, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 32, 37-40, 42, and 44 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 32, 37-40, 42, and 44 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
inputting data related to a pharmaceutical medication, wherein the inputted data are derived at least in part from documentation associated with the received pharmaceutical medication(s), and wherein the inputted data identify:
(1) name and quantity of at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication, and
(2) a location for at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication in an inventory, wherein the ordering of pharmaceutical medications in the inventory is not alphabetical by pharmaceutical medication name;
creating a record associated with at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication, wherein the record identifies the name and quantity of the portion of the pharmaceutical medication and the location for the portion of the pharmaceutical medication in the inventory.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Recording (“inputting”) information related to a pharmaceutical medication that is derived from associated documentation and includes data identifying the name, quantity, and an inventory storage location of the medication to create a record associated with the pharmaceutical medication which identifies the name, quantity and location in inventory, is a personal behavior that may be performed by pharmacy personnel.
Claim 19 recites implementing the steps of:
receiving an order for one or more pharmaceutical medications, wherein the order indicates a name and a quantity for each of the one or more pharmaceutical medications;
inputting data related to at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications, wherein the data identify the name and quantity for the portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications;
receiving a location identifier for at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications, wherein the location identifier identifies a location of the portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications in an inventory, and wherein the ordering of pharmaceutical medications in the inventory is not alphabetical by pharmaceutical medication name.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving an order for a pharmaceutical medication including a name and quantity of the medication and providing the name and quantity of the pharmaceutical medication to receive a location identifier of where the medication is stored in an inventory, are personal behaviors that may be performed by pharmacy personnel.
Claim 25 recites implementing the steps of:
inputting data identifying one or more of: an expiration date for one or more pharmaceutical medications and a name for one or more pharmaceutical medications;
receiving a location identifier for at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications, wherein the location identifier identifies a location of at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications in an inventory, and wherein the ordering of pharmaceutical medications in the inventory is not alphabetical by pharmaceutical medication name.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Providing data identifying an expiration date and/or name of a pharmaceutical medication and receiving a location identifier identifying where a portion of the medication is stored in an inventory are personal behaviors that may be performed by pharmacy personnel.
Claims 1, 19, 25 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
an electronic device with a processor and memory as implementing the step of inputting data related to a pharmaceutical medication (Claim 1); as implementing the steps of inputting data related to a pharmaceutical medication and providing the location identifier for the pharmaceutical medication in inventory (Claim 19); and as implementing the step of inputting data identifying an expiration date and/or a name of one or more pharmaceutical medications and providing the location identifier for the pharmaceutical medication in inventory (Claim 25)
the memory of the electronic device as storing the created record (Claim 1)
The broad recitation of the above-mentioned general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools. Regarding the electronic device with a processor and memory, per paras. [0121]-[0122], these elements are all understood to be general purpose computing elements functioning in their ordinary capacities (e.g., para. [0121] “In some implementations, the device may include a processor and memory. As used herein, a processor may include any processor known in the art suitable for a computer-implemented system described herein. As used herein, memory may include high-speed random access memory and/or non-volatile memory, or any other suitable memory known in the art”; para. [0122]/Fig. 6 teaching on an exemplary computing system with general purpose components, e.g., “The main system 602 includes a motherboard 604 having an I/O section 606, one or more central processing units (CPU) 608, and a memory section 610, which may have a flash memory card 612 related to it. The I/O section 606 is connected to a display 624, a keyboard 614, a disk storage unit 616, and a media drive unit 618. The media drive unit 618 can read/write a computer-readable medium 620, which can contain programs 622 and/or data”). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 1 additionally recites:
receiving a pharmaceutical medication;
storing the portion of the pharmaceutical medication at the location in the inventory.
The step of “receiving a pharmaceutical medication” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. As explained above, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea in the form of creating a record associated with a pharmaceutical medication which includes the name, quantity and location where the medication will be stored. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(g), "[t]he term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." In the present claim, the function of receiving the pharmaceutical medication is only nominally or tangentially related to the process of inputting data and creating a record associated with the medication, and accordingly constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution activity (receiving a pharmaceutical medication).
The step of “storing the portion of the pharmaceutical medication at the location in the inventory” amounts to insignificant application of the abstract idea, e.g., the step of actually storing the medication at the location is performed after the abstract idea has been performed to identify a location for storing the medication.
Claim 19 additionally recites:
retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier(s); and
dispensing at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications retrieved in based on the received order.
These elements amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of insignificant application. In the present claim, the functions of retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier(s) and dispensing a portion of the retrieved medication only amount to insignificant application of the abstract idea (e.g., after a location identifier for an ordered medication has been received).
Claim 25 additionally recites:
retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier;
dispositioning at least a portion of the retrieved one or more pharmaceutical medications.
These elements amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of insignificant application. In the present claim, the functions of retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier and dispositioning at least a portion of the retrieved one or more pharmaceutical medications only amount to insignificant application of the abstract idea (e.g., after a location identifier for an ordered medication has been received).
These elements in Sections A and B above are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1, 19, 25 only recite the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Likewise, as explained above, the steps of: receiving a pharmaceutical medication and storing the portion of the pharmaceutical medication at the location in the inventory in Claim 1; retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier(s) and dispensing at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications retrieved in based on the received order in Claim 19; and retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier and dispositioning at least a portion of the retrieved one or more pharmaceutical medications in Claim 25, only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity the elements in Section B above constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of steps of receiving a pharmaceutical medication and storing the portion of the pharmaceutical medication at the location in the inventory in Claim 1; retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier(s) and dispensing at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications retrieved in based on the received order in Claim 19; and retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier and dispositioning at least a portion of the retrieved one or more pharmaceutical medications in Claim 25 were considered extra-solution activity.
These have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and have been determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As evidenced by the prior art of record, each of these elements is a well-understood, routine, and conventional element in the field of healthcare and more specifically, pharmacy inventory management:
Regarding “receiving a pharmaceutical medication” in Claim 1, see:
Holmes at [0084]
Chudy at [0055], [0105]
Adams at [0059]
Regarding “storing the portion of the pharmaceutical medication at the location in the inventory” in Claim 1, see:
Holmes at [0085]-[0086]
Chudy at [0020]-[0022]
Wingenter at [0062]
Regarding “retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier(s)” in Claim 19, see:
Holmes at [0088]-[0089], [0110]
Chudy at [0010], [0021], [0070]
Iantorno at [0102]-[0103]
Regarding “dispensing at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications retrieved in based on the received order” in Claim 19
Holmes at [0089], [0110]
Chudy at [0010], [0021], [0154]
Iantorno at [0113]-[0115]
Regarding “retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier” in Claim 25, see:
Holmes at [0088]-[0089], [0110]
Chudy at [0010], [0021], [0070]
Iantorno at [0102]-[0103]
Regarding “dispositioning at least a portion of the retrieved one or more pharmaceutical medications” in Claim 25; Examiner notes that per specification, “dispositioning” is understood to include “disposed, expired, recalled, returned”).
Holmes at [0121]
Chudy at [0055]
Wingenter at [0078]
Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims or are also certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, Claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23 recite limitations which further narrow the scope of the independent claims.
Claim 3 recites limitations that parallel those recited by independent claim 1, except pertaining to a “second shipment” and utilizing a second location and second record. The discussion above with respect to Claim 1 is equally applicable to Claim 3. Claim 3 under its broadest reasonable interpretation includes limitations that are certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior; Claim 3 recites additional elements that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or are insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed above with respect to Claim 1 (See Berkheimer analysis above for steps for receiving a shipment, storing the medication in inventory). Claim 3 does not contain additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites limitations that parallel those recited by independent claim 19. The discussion above with respect to Claim 19 is equally applicable to Claim 18. Claim 18 under its broadest reasonable interpretation includes limitations that are certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior; Claim 18 recites additional elements that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or are insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed above with respect to Claim 1 (see Berkheimer analysis regarding steps for retrieving and dispensing medication). Claim 18 does not contain additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 32 recites limitations pertaining to after inputting the data related to the one or more pharmaceutical medications, receiving: (1) two or more location identifiers of at least a portion of one or more pharmaceutical medications, wherein each of the two or more location identifiers identifies the location of at least a portion of one or more pharmaceutical medications in the inventory, and (2) a suggested path for retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the two or more location identifiers, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as these are personal behaviors that may be performed by pharmacy personnel. Claim 32 also recites limitations pertaining to retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory according to the suggested path, wherein the retrieving is performed manually or by a robot, conveyor, or other automated device; and dispensing or dispositioning the retrieved portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications, which amount to insignificant application of the abstract idea. See discussion with respect to parent Claim 19 and Berkheimer analysis for the retrieving/dispensing steps; above discussion is equally applicable to Claim 32. Claim 32 does not contain additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 37 recites limitations pertaining to after inputting the data: receiving a list of one or more pharmaceutical medications in the inventory; and one or more of sorting, grouping, and filtering the list based at least in part on the inputted data, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as pharmacy personnel may provide input data, receive a list corresponding to one or more medications in the inventory, and sort, group or filter the list based on the provided data. Claim 37 recites “the electronic device” as implementing the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to parent claim, recitation of “electronic device” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 38 recites limitations pertaining to after inputting the data: updating a record of the portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications to indicate pending or received status, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as pharmacy personnel may update medication records. Claim 38 also recites “memory of the electronic device”. As discussed above with respect to parent claim, recitation of “memory of the electronic device” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 39 recites limitations pertaining to receiving data identifying total quantity, count, cost, price, or value of at least a portion of the one of the pharmaceutical medications which are stored, pending, or retrieved, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as pharmacy personnel could receive data pertaining to a stored/pending/retrieved medication identifying cost, quantity, price, etc. Claim 39 also recites “the electronic device”. As discussed above with respect to parent claim, recitation of “the electronic device” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 40 recites limitations pertaining to further comprising: updating a record of at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications to (a) subtract the pending or retrieved portion; and/or (b) indicate the pending or retrieved portion as pending or retrieved, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as pharmacy personnel may update medication records by subtracting a quantity of medication that is pending or retrieved. Claim 40 also recites “memory of the electronic device”. As discussed above with respect to parent claim, recitation of “memory of the electronic device” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 42 recites limitations pertaining to updating a record of at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications to indicate a status of the portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications as available; wherein the record is updated automatically, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior, as pharmacy personnel may update medication records to indicate a status of available. Claim 40 also recites “memory of the electronic device”. As discussed above with respect to parent claim, recitation of “memory of the electronic device” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 44 recites limitations pertaining to wherein retrieving the pharmaceutical medication from the inventory in (d) comprises scanning one or more codes associated with one or both of the pharmaceutical medication and the location; wherein the one or more codes comprise an optical barcode or radio frequency identification (RFID) code, which only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using general purpose computing elements, e.g., using a barcode scanner functioning in its ordinary capacity to electronically retrieve information about a medication in inventory. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1 or claim 19 respectively. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), or are insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 21-23, 32, 37-40, 42, and 44 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of the independent claims above. As discussed above with respect to Claims 1, 19 and 25 and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea or insignificant extra-solution activity. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 21-23, 32, 37-40, 42, and 44, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 32, 37-40, 42, and 44 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 37, 39, 40, 42, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Publication 20110184751A1) in view of Chudy et. al. (US Publication 20100030667A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Holmes discloses:
(a) receiving a pharmaceutical medication ([0050] teaches on a pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device; [0052] teaches on a first port of the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device for “receiving a medication” being input into the device; [0056] teaches on an input port for “stocking purposes”; stocking the inventory is interpreted as “receiving” medication to put into inventory);
(b) at an electronic device with a processor and memory ([0055] teaches on the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval system including a processing system (“electronic device”) which includes a CPU or microprocessor (“processor”) and memory storage device (“memory)), inputting data related to the pharmaceutical medication ([0084] teaches on the stocking module (interpreted as implementing the function of inputting data) instructing the device to read or scan a NDC barcode label on the bottle and to store the read data in the server and/or database; the NDC includes data such as manufacturer, type of drug, count and type of package – data related to the pharmaceutical medication; [0105] teaches on inputting pharmaceutical inventory items into the device in native packaging; the scanner reads the label on the packaging and sends the information received to the server; the scanner may read the barcode on the native packaging, or image the packaging to read information from the packaging label; the system may also read the NDC code and determine information from a table or directory; [0106] further teaches on a user utilizing a monitor to input additional information regarding an inventory item such as type, size, expiration date, lot number), wherein the inputted data are derived at least in part from documentation associated with the pharmaceutical medication(s) received in (a) ([0084] teaches on scanning an NDC barcode label which accesses NDC data stored in NDC database and includes manufacturer, type of drug, count and package – Examiner interprets accessing data about the medication from the NDC database to be a type of electronic documentation associated with the pharmaceutical medication; [0105] teaches on the device utilizing a scanner to read the barcode on packaging to obtain information or using an imaging function to read information from the packaging label – interpreted as accessing electronic documentation associated with the medication), and wherein the inputted data identify:
(1) [type] and quantity of at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication ([0105] teaches on inputting data about a medication obtained from the label including “type of medication” and “amount of medication” such as number of tablets or volume of liquid), and
(2) a location for at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication in an inventory, wherein the ordering of pharmaceutical medications in the inventory is not alphabetical by pharmaceutical medication name ([0084] teaches broadly on accessing data associated with a received medication and associating the read data with a “particular location within the device, based on where the bottle is specifically stored; [0086] teaches on a space optimizer module which “randomly” stores bottles based on frequency of use and bottle size – random storage and/or storing by frequency of use and bottle size are interpreted as being “not alphabetical” by name; the space optimizer module selects a “particular location” to efficiently store the particular medication bottle);
(c) creating a record associated with at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication in the memory of the electronic device ([0084] teaches on scanning the NDC barcode label when a medication is stocked (received); the NDC label is read and the read data is stored in the server and/or a database; [0119] further teaches on the device “records” inventory that has been loaded; wherein the record identifies the [type] and quantity of the portion of the pharmaceutical medication and the location for the portion of the pharmaceutical medication in the inventory ([0084] teaches on the device using a scanner to read data on a NDC label which identifies manufacturer, type of drug and count; the read data is associated with a particular location in the device where the medication will be stored – interpreted as a record identifying drug type, quantity and location); and
(d) storing the portion of the pharmaceutical medication at the location in the inventory ([0086] teaches on the space optimizer module randomly storing bottles based on frequency of use; a particular location is selected to efficiently store a particular bottle).
Holmes discloses identifying and recording a “medication type” and “type of drug” but does not specifically disclose a name of the pharmaceutical medication. Chudy, which is directed to an adaptive pharmaceutical management system, teaches:
a name of a pharmaceutical medication ([0098] teaches on “pharmaceutical product name” for a medication stored in inventory; see Figs. 2A-2C showing drug containers with specific medication names, e.g., “Celebrex” in Fig. 2B, which may be used with the claimed system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holmes with these teachings of Chudy, to replace the “medication type” of Holmes with the specific “pharmaceutical product name” of Chudy, with the motivation of providing identification information for the pharmaceutical medication (Chudy [0087]). Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted features of Chudy with the combined teachings of Holmes, since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B, MPEP 2143). Since each individual element is shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the medication “name” of the Chudy reference for the medication “type” of the Holmes reference. Both “name” and “type” of medication are ways of identifying a medication in an inventory. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 4, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 1. Holmes further discloses wherein the location for the pharmaceutical medication in the inventory inputted in (b) is different from the previous location for a pharmaceutical medication having the same name or medication identification code as the pharmaceutical medication received in (a). (Holmes [0103] “while the device 10, 600, 802 can store medications in any order, such as, for example, an alphabetical order, the device 10, 600, 802 does not require the new stock to be stored in the same order”; [0115] “inventory can be returned to the same or different location on the shelving system 100 during reloading that it had been placed in during loading. However, the server 804 can continuously process algorithms relating to frequency in use of inventory, size and weight of inventory, and available space on shelves 102. Based on these calculations, the reloaded inventory can be placed in a different location on the shelving system 100 than it had been located before removal”).
Regarding Claim 9, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 1. Holmes further discloses wherein the data are inputted in (b) through an optical barcode scanner, radio frequency identification (RFID} reader, Optical Character Recognition (OCR) device, or Natural Language Processing (NLP) device ([0052] teaches on a barcode scanner as part of the device; [0084] teaches on the device reading/scanning a NDC barcode label; [0105] teaches on loading inventory into the device; a scanner is used to scan the inventory item by reading the barcode on the native packaging of the inventory – interpreted as an “optical barcode scanner”).
Regarding Claim 10, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 1. Holmes further discloses wherein the location is automatically inputted by the electronic device in (b) based on one or more criteria ([0086] teaches on the space optimizer module randomly storing medication bottles based on frequency of use and size of the bottle… The particular location for each bottle is stored in the database 832; the optimizer module is interpreted as being part of the electronic device); and wherein the criteria comprise one or more of: a previous location in the inventory, a proximal location in the inventory, an available location in the inventory, name, expiration date, source, medication identification code, NDC, dosage form, manufacturer, labeler, lot or batch number, quantity, count, cost, price, value, packaging size or type, the inventory turnover, storage requirement, tracking information, shipment method, courier, date created, date updated, date shipped, date received, date stored, date pended, date retrieved, date dispensed, date dispositioned, transaction information or history, and condition of the pharmaceutical medication ([0086] teaches on randomly storing the bottle in inventory based on “frequency of use” (interpreted as reading on broadest reasonable interpretation of “inventory turnover”) and “size of the bottle” (interpreted as “packaging size”)).
Regarding Claim 13, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 1. Holmes further discloses wherein the location identifier for the portion of the pharmaceutical medication in the inventory identifies one or more of: an aisle or area, a shelving unit, an inventory container, and a section within an aisle, area, shelving unit, or inventory container ([0007] discloses “The method comprises…determining a shelf location of a container having the medication type, retrieving the container from the identified shelf location”; “shelf location” is interpreted as reading on “shelving unit”).
Regarding Claim 18, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 1. Holmes further discloses: further comprising, after (d): (e) receiving an order for at least a portion of a pharmaceutical medication received in (a) ([0007] teaches on obtaining a prescription including a medication type), wherein the order identifies a [medication type] and a quantity for the portion of the pharmaceutical medication ([0007] teaches on a prescription including a “medication type”; [0088] teaches on receiving data regarding a queue of prescriptions to be filled; per [0084]-[0087] all medications being dispensed have at one time gone through the stocking procedure; [0089] teaches on a pharmacist counting pills required to fill a prescription after the medication has been retrieved from the device, which is interpreted as indicating that the quantity is known; Claim 6 teaches on prescription information including a quantity of a medication type).
(f) at the electronic device, inputting data related to at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication, wherein the data identify the [type] and quantity for the portion of the pharmaceutical medication ([0111] teaches on a particular medication being needed to fill an order; the “prescription” is entered to the system; Claim 6 specifically teaches on the prescription includes a quantity);
(g) receiving a location identifier for at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication from the electronic device, wherein the location identifier identifies the location of the portion of the pharmaceutical medication in the inventory ([0086] teaches on after a bottle is stocked, its particular location is stored in a database; [0110] “The user informs the device 10, 600, 802 of the type of inventory that they wish to remove by inputting the information to the server 804 using the monitor 812. The server 804 accesses the database to determine the location on the shelving system 100 of the desired inventory);
(h) retrieving at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication from the inventory based on the location identifier(s) ([0088] teaches on filling a prescription; once a prescription is selected for fulfillment, instructions are transmitted to the device to obtain the bottle containing the medication needed to fill the selected prescription; [0089] teaches the carriage system retrieving the bottle and placing it into the first port; [0110] teaches on using the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device to remove inventory; the user informs the device which inventory to remove by inputting it via monitor; the server accesses database 832 to determine the location on the shelving system of the desired inventory; the transfer mechanism moves the robotic arm and carrying device to pick up the inventory and release it to the scale – interpreted as “retrieving” the medication from inventory based on a location identifier as the database provides information regarding a shelf location); and
(i) dispensing at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication retrieved in (h) based on the received order ([0089] teaches on the carriage retrieving the bottle from storage; the label is compared with the label from the selected prescription to verify it matches; upon confirmation of a match (e.g., the received order matches the prescription), the device activates the door to open so pharmacy personnel can retrieve the bottle – interpreted as “dispensing” the retrieved portion of pharmaceutical medication to pharmacy personnel; once the weigh tis confirmed, the port door opens to allow the user to remove the inventory from the device; the pharmacy personnel can retrieve the bottle and “count the appropriate number of pills to fill the prescription” – interpreted as dispensing at least a portion of the medication for a patient/customer receiving the prescription; [0110] further teaches on mechanically retrieving a requested medication, verifying weight, and once the weight is confirmed, the port door opens to allow the user to remove the inventory from the device – also interpreted as dispensing the portion of retrieved medication to the pharmacy person based on the order).
Holmes discloses identifying and recording a “medication type” and “type of drug” but does not specifically disclose a name of the pharmaceutical medication. Chudy, which is directed to an adaptive pharmaceutical management system, teaches:
a name of a pharmaceutical medication ([0098] teaches on “pharmaceutical product name” for a medication stored in inventory; see Figs. 2A-2C showing drug containers with specific medication names, e.g., “Celebrex” in Fig. 2B, which may be used with the claimed system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holmes with these teachings of Chudy, to replace the “medication type” of Holmes with the specific “pharmaceutical product name” of Chudy, with the motivation of providing identification information for the pharmaceutical medication (Chudy [0087]). Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted features of Chudy with the combined teachings of Holmes, since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B, MPEP 2143). Since each individual element is shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the medication “name” of the Chudy reference for the medication “type” of the Holmes reference. Both are ways of identifying a medication in an inventory. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 19, Holmes discloses:
(a) receiving an order for one or more pharmaceutical medications, wherein the order indicates a [medication type] and a quantity for each of the one or more pharmaceutical medications ([0007] teaches on the invention providing a method of filling a prescription comprising “obtaining prescription information, the prescription information including a medication type”; [0088] teaches on receiving data from the pharmacy management system 828 regarding a queue of prescriptions needing to be filled for a particular customer – e.g., receiving an order for pharmaceutical medications; Claim 6 specifically teaches on the prescription includes a quantity);
(b) at an electronic device with a processor and memory ([0055] teaches on the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device including a processing system which includes a processor and memory), inputting data related to at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications, wherein the data identify the [type] and quantity for the portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications ([0111] teaches on a particular medication being needed to fill an order; the “prescription” is entered to the system; per [0007] prescription information includes a medication type; Claim 6 specifically teaches on the prescription includes a quantity);
(c) receiving a location identifier for at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the electronic device, wherein the location identifier identifies a location of the portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications in an inventory ([0086] teaches on after a bottle is stocked, its particular location is stored in a database; [0110] “The user informs the device 10, 600, 802 of the type of inventory that they wish to remove by inputting the information to the server 804 using the monitor 812. The server 804 accesses the database to determine the location on the shelving system 100 of the desired inventory), and wherein the ordering of pharmaceutical medications in the inventory is not alphabetical by pharmaceutical medication name ([0086] teaches on a space optimizer module which “randomly” stores bottles based on frequency of use and bottle size – random bottle storage and/or storing by frequency of use and bottle size are both interpreted as being “not alphabetical” by name; the space optimizer module selects a “particular location” to efficiently store the particular medication bottle);
(d) retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier(s) ([0088] teaches on filling a prescription; once a prescription is selected for fulfillment, instructions are transmitted to the device to obtain the bottle containing the medication needed to fill the selected prescription; [0089] teaches the carriage system retrieving the bottle and placing it into the first port; [0110] teaches on using the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device to remove inventory; the user informs the device which inventory to remove by inputting it via monitor; the server accesses database 832 to determine the location on the shelving system of the desired inventory; the transfer mechanism moves the robotic arm and carrying device to pick up the inventory and release it to the scale – interpreted as “retrieving” the medication from inventory based on a location identifier as the database provides information regarding a shelf location); and
(e) dispensing at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications retrieved in (d) based on the received order ([0089] teaches on the carriage retrieving the bottle from storage; the label is compared with the label from the selected prescription to verify it matches; upon confirmation of a match (e.g., the received order matches the prescription)m the device activates the door to open so pharmacy personnel can retrieve the bottle – interpreted as “dispensing” the retrieved portion of pharmaceutical medication to pharmacy personnel; once the weigh tis confirmed, the port door opens to allow the user to remove the inventory from the device; the pharmacy personnel can retrieve the bottle and “count the appropriate number of pills to fill the prescription” – interpreted as dispensing at least a portion of the medication for a patient/customer receiving the prescription; [0110] further teaches on mechanically retrieving a requested medication, verifying weight, and once the weight is confirmed, the port door opens to allow the user to remove the inventory from the device – also interpreted as dispensing the portion of retrieved medication to the pharmacy person based on the order).
Holmes discloses identifying and recording a “medication type” and “type of drug” but does not specifically disclose a name of the pharmaceutical medication. Chudy, which is directed to an adaptive pharmaceutical management system, teaches:
a name of a pharmaceutical medication ([0098] teaches on “pharmaceutical product name” for a medication stored in inventory; see Figs. 2A-2C showing drug containers with specific medication names, e.g., “Celebrex” in Fig. 2B, which may be used with the claimed system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holmes with these teachings of Chudy, to replace the “medication type” of Holmes with the specific “pharmaceutical product name” of Chudy, with the motivation of providing identification information for the pharmaceutical medication (Chudy [0087]). Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted features of Chudy with the combined teachings of Holmes, since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B, MPEP 2143). Since each individual element is shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the medication “name” of the Chudy reference for the medication “type” of the Holmes reference. Both are ways of identifying a medication in an inventory. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 21, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 19. Holmes further discloses wherein the order is received automatically at the electronic device in (a) ([0120] teaches on the pharmacy system communicating with the server so that the server receives the prescription information), and wherein the data related to at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications are inputted automatically at the electronic device in (b) ([0088] teaches on the fill prescription module receiving data from the pharmacy system regarding queue of prescriptions to be filled; a prescription would contain both drug name and quantity).
Regarding Claim 23, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 19. Holmes further discloses wherein the location identifier received from the electronic device is based on one or more criteria comprising one or more of: a previous location in the inventory, a proximal location in the inventory, an available location in the inventory, name, expiration date, source, medication identification code, NDC, dosage form, manufacturer, labeler, lot or batch number, quantity, count, cost, price, value, packaging size or type, the inventory turnover, storage requirement, tracking information, shipment method, courier, repacked by user, reconciled by user, created by user, inputted by user, updated by user, shipped by user, received by user, stored by user, pended by user, retrieved by user, dispensed by user, dispositioned by user, date repacked, date reconciled, date created, date inputted, date updated, date shipped, date received, date stored, date pended, date retrieved, date dispensed, date dispositioned, transaction information or history, and condition of the pharmaceutical medication ([0086] teaches on stocking a medication into the storage device; the space optimizer module randomly stores the bottle based on frequency and size of use; the particular location for each bottle is stored in the database 832; [0089] teaches on when a prescription is being filled, the system communicates with database 832 to obtain the particular location where the needed bottle of medication is stored within the device – interpreted as teaching on, the location identifier received is based on criteria comprising “previous location in inventory” (where it was stored by the optimizer module previously) and “available location in the inventory”).
Regarding Claim 25, Holmes discloses:
(a) at an electronic device with a processor and memory ([0055] teaches on the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device including a processing system which includes a processor and memory), inputting data identifying one or more of: an expiration date for one or more pharmaceutical medications and a [medication type] for one or more pharmaceutical medications ([0111] teaches on inputting a particular medication to be removed from inventory; the “prescription” is entered to the system; per [0007] “prescription” is understood to include a medication type”);
(b) receiving from the electronic device a location identifier for at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications, wherein the location identifier identifies a location of at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications in an inventory ([0086] teaches on after a bottle is stocked, its particular location is stored in a database; [0110] “The user informs the device 10, 600, 802 of the type of inventory that they wish to remove by inputting the information to the server 804 using the monitor 812. The server 804 accesses the database to determine the location on the shelving system 100 of the desired inventory), and wherein the ordering of pharmaceutical medications in the inventory is not alphabetical by pharmaceutical medication name ([0086] teaches on a space optimizer module which “randomly” stores bottles based on frequency of use and bottle size – random bottle storage and/or storing by frequency of use and bottle size are both interpreted as being “not alphabetical” by name; the space optimizer module selects a “particular location” to efficiently store the particular medication bottle);
(c) retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory based on the location identifier ([0088] teaches on filling a prescription; once a prescription is selected for fulfillment, instructions are transmitted to the device to obtain the bottle containing the medication needed to fill the selected prescription; [0089] teaches the carriage system retrieving the bottle and placing it into the first port; [0110] teaches on using the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device to remove inventory; the user informs the device which inventory to remove by inputting it via monitor; the server accesses database 832 to determine the location on the shelving system of the desired inventory; the transfer mechanism moves the robotic arm and carrying device to pick up the inventory and release it to the scale – interpreted as “retrieving” the medication from inventory based on a location identifier as the database provides information regarding a shelf location); and
(d) dispositioning at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications retrieved in (c) ([0121] teaches on the pharmacy automatically scheduling a return day of unused medication; the pharmacy user is alerted prior to expiration day of a particular medication; the pharmacy can return unused portions of medication whose expiration day has reached the predetermined amount of time; Examiner interprets removing unused portions from inventory and returning it to read on broadest reasonable interpretation of “dispositioning” medication in view of Applicant’s specification, para. [0085] which defines dispositioned as “e.g., disposed, expired, recalled, returned, quarantined”).
Holmes discloses a “medication type” but does not specifically disclose a name of the pharmaceutical medication. Chudy, which is directed to an adaptive pharmaceutical management system, teaches:
a name of a pharmaceutical medication ([0098] teaches on “pharmaceutical product name” for a medication stored in inventory; see Figs. 2A-2C showing drug containers with specific medication names, e.g., “Celebrex” in Fig. 2B, which may be used with the claimed system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holmes with these teachings of Chudy, to replace the “medication type” of Holmes with the specific “pharmaceutical product name” of Chudy, with the motivation of providing identification information for the pharmaceutical medication (Chudy [0087]). Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted features of Chudy with the combined teachings of Holmes, since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B, MPEP 2143). Since each individual element is shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the medication “name” of the Chudy reference for the medication “type” of the Holmes reference. Both are ways of identifying a medication in an inventory. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 37, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 19. Holmes further discloses further comprising, after inputting the data: receiving from the electronic device a list of one or more pharmaceutical medications in the inventory ([0083] teaches on maintaining an inventory list of bottles being put into the device).
Holmes does not disclose the following, but Chudy further teaches:
one or more of sorting, grouping, and filtering the list based at least in part on the inputted data ([0012] “The inventory of pharmaceutical product containers will include full containers, partially-full containers and may include multiple containers for the same pharmaceutical product but with different quantities, lot numbers and expiration dates” – multiple containers of same medication in inventory; [0020] “A database record of the storage location of each container is created when each container is placed into storage” – each container has its own record, even if the medication is in multiple containers, when taken with para. [0012] this represents a plurality of records in the database; [0138] teaches how an individual can search for a prescription, also, “The selection is output to controller 63 which accesses a record in database 73 for the prescription which includes the pharmaceutical product type, strength, and quantity required to fulfill the patient prescription” – records are filtered/sorted/grouped by prescriptions that match type/quantity required; [0139] “At block 233, controller 63 determines the storage location (e.g., locations 37-59) at which a pharmaceutical product container (e.g., containers 13-19) containing the required product is located” – filtering, sorting or grouping a plurality of search results, plurality of containers 13-19 in which each would have its own record; if system is aware that the required product is in containers 13-19, the search results have been filtered, sorted or grouped as such).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Holmes/Chudy with these teachings of Chudy, with the motivation of being able to use the sorted/grouped/filtered information to determine which storage locations contain a required quantity or contain product closest to expiration to be used next (Chudy [0138]-[0140]).
Regarding Claim 39 Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of claim 19. Holmes further discloses further comprising: receiving from the electronic device data identifying total quantity, count, cost, price, or value of at least a portion of the one of the pharmaceutical medications which are stored, pending, or retrieved ([0091] teaches on tracking inventory of a number of pills in a bottle (quantity stored), specifically disclosing, "The fill prescription module 892 compares the read data on the label and the weight to information in the NDC database 834 or other database to determine if the appropriate number of pills remains in the bottle after filling the prescription”; para. [0092] “The software program 824 also includes an inventory check module 894. The inventory check module 894 is operable to maintain a current list of medications within the device 802. The inventory check module 894 also is operable to communicate with the database 832 to request inventory information stored therein. The inventory check module 894, when instructed, can provide a list of all medications within the device 802 and transmit the data to the printer 816 for a readable printout” – total quantity/count of medications stored in inventory; see also [0114] which also teaches data identifying total quantity/count of a medication stored in inventory, “Since the medication had previously been removed from the device 10, 600, 802 to fill a prescription for a number of tablets of that medication, the information regarding the inventory is already stored in the server 804”).
Regarding Claim 40, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of claim 19. Holmes further discloses further comprising: updating a record of at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications in the memory of the electronic device to: (a) subtract the pending or retrieved portion; and/or (b) indicate the pending or retrieved portion as pending or retrieved ([0092] “the device 802 maintains a record of all prescriptions filled and thus, the remaining number of pills remaining in each bottle” (e.g., subtracting the retrieved portion); [0114] describes the detailed process of determining remaining quantity of medication after a portion is removed from bottle – interpreted as “subtracting” the retrieved portion to determine an amount remaining in a bottle after filling an order).
Regarding Claim 42, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of claim 19. Holmes further discloses further comprising: updating a record of at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications in the memory of the electronic device to indicate a status of the portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications as available, wherein the record is updated automatically by the electronic device ([0084]-[0086] teach on stocking the pharmaceutical storage and dispensing device with medication bottles; after the bottle is placed into inventory and relevant information (manufacturer, type of drug, count, etc.) are stored to database, the particular location for each bottle is stored in the database; Examiner interprets storing the location of a bottle with quantity/type of medication to read on that medication being “available” as a record exists for an available quantity of the medication in the particular location).
Regarding Claim 44, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of claim 19. Holmes further discloses wherein retrieving the pharmaceutical medication from the inventory in (d) comprises scanning one or more codes associated with one or both of the pharmaceutical medication and the location; wherein the one or more codes comprise an optical barcode or radio frequency identification (RFID) code ([0089] teaches on the carriage system retrieving a bottle of medication and the scanner being instructed to read the label on the bottle; the read data is compared to the selected prescription to ensure a match before providing the retrieved bottle to pharmacy personnel for dispensing; the code is interpreted as being an “optical” bar code as it is “read” by the scanner; [0096] further teaches on using a ‘barcode scanner’ with the claimed invention).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Publication 20110184751A1) in view of Chudy et. al. (US Publication 20100030667A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Skuvault.com Article “Amazon Warehouses: Learn How to Harness Chaos for Efficiency (hereinafter “Skuvault”).
Regarding Claim 3, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 1. Holmes further discloses wherein the first pharmaceutical medication is received in a first shipment in (a) ([0117] teaches delivery of first medication, e.g., “when the delivery of medications arrives…”, which reads on “first shipment”), and the method further comprises: after (d), receiving a second shipment comprising the pharmaceutical medication ([0103]) teaches “With the present invention, and particularly with the traveler 140, the robotic arm 144, the server 804, the device 10, 600, 802 can store the new stock of medication in any suitable order. Specifically, when a medication is stocked initially with the traveler 140 or gantry system 838, the server 804 can be configured to remember and retrieve where the particular medication has been stored and when a shelf is available” – “stocked initially” infers a medication from an earlier (first) shipment; [0103] “while the device 10, 600, 802 can store medications in any order…the device 10, 600, 802 does not require the new stock to be stored in the same order.” – “new stock” infers incoming medication from a later shipment such as a second shipment), at the electronic device ([0055] “the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device 10 can include a processing system 90. The processing system 90 includes a CPU or a microprocessor 92, a memory storage device), inputting second data related to the pharmaceutical medication ([0106], “the user can utilize the monitor 812 to input additional information (at 338) regarding the inventory item into the server 804, including the type, size, expiration date, Lot number, etc.”), wherein the second data identify: [type] of the pharmaceutical medication and quantity of at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication received in the second shipment ([0105] teaches on inputting data about a medication obtained from the label including “type of medication” and “amount of medication” such as number of tablets or volume of liquid), and a second location for at least a portion of the pharmaceutical medication in the inventory, ([0084] teaches broadly on accessing data associated with a received medication and associating the read data with a “particular location within the device, based on where the bottle is specifically stored; [0086] teaches on a space optimizer module which “randomly” stores bottles based on frequency of use and bottle size); creating a second record associated with the pharmaceutical medication in the memory of the electronic device [0084] teaches on scanning the NDC barcode label when a medication is stocked (received); the NDC label is read and the read data is stored in the server and/or a database; [0119] further teaches on the device “records” inventory that has been loaded), wherein the second record identifies the second location for the pharmaceutical medication in the inventory and a quantity of the pharmaceutical medication based at least in part on the quantity of the portion of the pharmaceutical medication received in the second shipment ([0084] teaches on the device using a scanner to read data on a NDC label which identifies manufacturer, type of drug and count; the read data is associated with a particular location in the device where the medication will be stored – interpreted as the record identifying the location and a quantity, based at least in part on the quantity received, if the count is known); and storing the portion of the pharmaceutical medication received in the second shipment at the second location in the inventory ([0086] teaches on the space optimizer module randomly storing bottles based on frequency of use; a particular location is selected to efficiently store a particular bottle).
Regarding recitation of “second”, Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 3 generally mirror those recited in previous claim 1 except for performing each function a second time, e.g. second data, second location, second record, etc. Holmes discloses, at [0086] that bottles are “randomly stored” based on bottle size and frequency of use; at para. [0115], that the server continuously processes algorithms to reload inventory to different locations; Examiner interprets these in combination to indicate that each time inventory is loaded, it is done so in a random location, e.g., second data for second location. The limitations of Claim 3 amount to duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Claim 3 is merely repeating the same steps as Claim 1 at a later point in time and does not yield a new or unexpected result.
Holmes discloses identifying and recording a “medication type” and “type of drug” but does not specifically disclose a name of the pharmaceutical medication. Chudy, which is directed to an adaptive pharmaceutical management system, teaches:
a name of a pharmaceutical medication ([0098] teaches on “pharmaceutical product name” for a medication stored in inventory; see Figs. 2A-2C showing pharmaceutical containers with specific names, e.g., “Celebrex” in Fig. 2B, which may be used with the claimed system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holmes with these teachings of Chudy, to replace the “medication type” of Holmes with the specific “pharmaceutical product name” of Chudy, with the motivation of providing identification information for the pharmaceutical medication (Chudy [0087]).
Holmes/Chudy do not explicitly teach the following, but Skuvault’s article “Amazon Warehouses”, which is directed to how Amazon uses chaotic storage in its warehouses for storing inventory, teaches: wherein the second location of the [item] in the inventory is different from the first location of the [inventory] in the inventory inputted in (b) (Page 2, box at bottom, “Chaotic storage is a system wherein incoming products are placed randomly on available shelving space within a given warehouse with disregard for itemized locations”; Examiner interprets “randomly” placing items on shelves with a “disregard for itemized locations” to teach that new item inventory will not be located together with the like items from prior shipments; Page 2, “Chaotic Storage” section further teaches on how people generally associate “neatly managed shelves stocked with similar products arranged methodically by alphabet, SKUs, or some other metric”, but then goes on to discuss how Amazon enacts a “chaotic storage” system instead, which is interpreted as also teaching that multiples of the same item are stored in random (different) locations).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holmes/Chudy with these teachings of Skuvault, to place multiple containers of the same pharmaceutical medication of Holmes in different locations in the inventory as new shipments are received, because chaotic storage increases warehouse efficiency and streamlines processes (Page 3, first line), and because it allows space to be utilized more efficiently (Space, page 6) and helps to avoid mix-ups when like-products are not stored near each other (Accuracy, page 6).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Publication 20110184751A1) in view of Chudy et. al. (US Publication 20100030667A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Brazeau et. al. (US Publication 20160236867A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 1. Holmes further discloses wherein the inventory comprises a plurality of sections (Fig. 5/para. [0060] teach on the interior of the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device, which includes a “shelving system having a plurality of shelves”; Fig. 5 shows plurality of shelves (designed number 102 in drawing); the plurality of shelves is interpreted as “plurality of sections” as each shelf represents a different “section” of inventory).
Holmes does not disclose, but Brazeau, which is directed to a warehouse system with modular, muti-function containers, teaches:
wherein each section of the plurality is labeled with a different location in the inventory (Para. [0021]/Fig. 1 show a warehouse schematic with “one or more inventory containers or pods 130”; the bins are spread throughout the warehouse (different locations in inventory); [0043] teaches on shelving units being modular and stacked on top of each other; bins include a bar code, RFID tag, or other “labeling means”; [0089] details use of location identifier for locating a bin in which the robot can use “location identifiers” to travel to the bin; [0043] further teaches on the structure of the shelving units/bin; see Fig. 3A; the different compartments of the shelving unit and bins ); and wherein the sections of the plurality are designated or divided by physical dividers that are movable within the inventory ([0021]/Fig. 1 teach on a warehouse schematic with one or more inventory containers or pods 103 which are “transported by robots 120” – each bin is interpreted as a physical divider that is movable within inventory; [0033] teaches on a work assignment including a “location of a bin to be retrieved” – the bin is interpreted as a plurality of sections – movable within inventory; [0043] teaches on bins being modular and stackable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holmes/Chudy with these teachings of Brazeau to incorporate labeled storage containers that are retrievable from the inventory with the motivation of using labeling as a means to enable a robot (or individual) to ensure that it has located the correct storage location (Brazeau at [0043]), and to use removable storage containers so that they can be delivered to a workstation for restocking or order fulfillment (Brazeau [0018]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Publication 20110184751A1) in view of Chudy (US Publication 20100030667A1) as applied to Claim 19 above, and further in further in view of Broussard et al (US Publication 20040138921A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 19, but do not teach the following. Broussard, which is directed to an integrated pharmacy system that creates a substitution reference list with medical equivalents for automatically filling prescriptions, does teach the following:
wherein a location identifier received in (c) identifies a location of a generic or therapeutic equivalent of at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the order received in (a) ([0060] teaches on receiving prescription information and applying substitution rules, which are “medical item equivalencies established by the pharmacy”; a substitution reference list identifies the requested (prescribed) drug and any equivalent drugs that may be dispensed in place of the requested drug; [0061] teaches on selecting one of the substitution drugs for dispensing; [0064] teaches on after approval of selected drug for substitution, the location of the drug to be filled is identified; it may include the location of an item or be used with pick lighting or operation locks), and wherein the generic or therapeutic equivalent of at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications is retrieved in (d) and dispensed in (e) ([0064] teaches on location identification and dispensing of a drug; in the case of automated equipment, the dispensing information includes all information needed for the automated equipment to automatically dispense the drug).
Therefore, 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 combined teachings of Holmes/Chudy with the teachings of Broussard, to identify the location of, and dispense, a therapeutic equivalent for a medication (e.g., a substitution medication) to select an alternate drug based on medical item availability, expiration date, cost, inventory management, and pharmacy profit potential (Broussard [0061]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Publication 20110184751A1) in view of Chudy (US Publication 20100030667A1) as applied to Claim 19 above, further in view of Rouaix (US Patent 8175925B1), and further in view of Skuvault.com Article “Amazon Warehouses: Learn How to Harness Chaos for Efficiency (hereinafter “Skuvault”).
Regarding Claim 32, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of Claim 19. Holmes further discloses after inputting the data related to the one or more pharmaceutical medications at the electronic device, receiving from the electronic device ([0111] teaches on a particular medication being needed to fill an order; the “prescription” is entered to the system),
(1) location identifier of at least a portion of one or more pharmaceutical medications, wherein each location identifier identifies the location of at least a portion of one or more pharmaceutical medications in the inventory ([0086] teaches on after a bottle is stocked, its particular location is stored in a database; [0110] “The user informs the device 10, 600, 802 of the type of inventory that they wish to remove by inputting the information to the server 804 using the monitor 812. The server 804 accesses the database to determine the location on the shelving system 100 of the desired inventory”),
retrieving at least a portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications from the inventory wherein the retrieving is performed manually or by a robot, conveyor, or other automated device ([0088] teaches on filling a prescription; once a prescription is selected for fulfillment, instructions are transmitted to the device to obtain the bottle containing the medication needed to fill the selected prescription; [0089] teaches the carriage system retrieving the bottle and placing it into the first port; [0110] teaches on using the pharmaceutical storage and retrieval device to remove inventory; the user informs the device which inventory to remove by inputting it via monitor; the server accesses database 832 to determine the location on the shelving system of the desired inventory; the transfer mechanism moves the robotic arm and carrying device to pick up the inventory and release it to the scale – interpreted as “retrieving” the medication from inventory based on a location identifier as the database provides information regarding a shelf location)
dispensing or dispositioning the retrieved portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications ([0089] teaches on the carriage retrieving the bottle from storage; the label is compared with the label from the selected prescription to verify it matches; upon confirmation of a match (e.g., the received order matches the prescription)m the device activates the door to open so pharmacy personnel can retrieve the bottle – interpreted as “dispensing” the retrieved portion of pharmaceutical medication to pharmacy personnel; once the weigh tis confirmed, the port door opens to allow the user to remove the inventory from the device; the pharmacy personnel can retrieve the bottle and “count the appropriate number of pills to fill the prescription” – interpreted as dispensing at least a portion of the medication for a patient/customer receiving the prescription; [0110] further teaches on mechanically retrieving a requested medication, verifying weight, and once the weight is confirmed, the port door opens to allow the user to remove the inventory from the device – also interpreted as dispensing the portion of retrieved medication to the pharmacy person based on the order).
Holmes/Chudy do not disclose the following, but Rouaix, which is directed to position-based item identification for storing items in an inventory area, does teach the following:
(1) two or more location identifiers of at least a portion of one or more [items], wherein each of the two or more location identifiers identifies the location of at least a portion of one or more [items] in the inventory (Col 3 lines 37-41 teach “the picking agent may utilize a communication device configured to present picking instructions, including the location of the inventory area in which the item is stored”; “information representing the item's position within the inventory area”; Col 3 lines 41-44 teach “The presented position information may include a description of the item's position with reference to the overall inventory area or relative to other items in the same inventory area, in some embodiments”, where position information is comprised of inventory area and information representing the item’s position within the inventory area, as cited above in Col 3 lines 37-41; Col 12 line 65-Col 13 line1 teaches “Position and/or pattern information may be provided to each agent to aid in locating items within the inventory areas” – “locating items” is interpreted as teaching that two or more location identifiers for one or more items are provided)
Therefore, 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 combined teachings of Holmes/Chudy with the teachings of Rouaix, and provide two or more location identifiers for the stored pharmaceutical medications of Holmes, in order to facilitate efficient location items in an order (Rouaix Col 11 lines 9-12).
Holmes/Chudy/Rouaix do not teach, but Skuvault, which is directed to how Amazon utilizes chaotic storage in its inventory operations, does teach the following:
(2) a suggested path for retrieving at least a portion of the one or more [items] from the inventory based on the two or more location identifiers (“Picking” section, first paragraph: “Data collected on products and locations is used to map out the most optimal routes for pickers.” Skuvault embedded video, time 1:10, frame reads: “When an order comes in, a computer finds the fastest route for all of the items to be picked up”, frame included as reference);
retrieving at least a portion of the one or more [items] from the inventory according to the suggested path, wherein the retrieving is performed manually or by a robot, conveyor, or other automated device (“Picking” section, second paragraph: “instead of running all over the warehouse to fulfill orders, management software will tell employees how many orders need to be picked, where it is, and the best route to get it”. See also Skuvault embedded video, time 1:10: “When an order comes in, a computer finds the fastest route for all of the items to be picked up”; frame included as reference; Video, at time 0:08 shows shelving unit where each compartment has a label showing its unique location identifier, frame included as reference; embedded video at time frames 0:00-0:05 shows labeled shelves, e.g., at 0:02, shelf location labeled 124D153 can be seen adjacent to shelf location labeled 124D152 – Examiner interprets employees fulfilling orders to read on “manually” retrieving the items based on the suggested path).
Therefore, 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 combined teachings of Holmes/Chudy/Rouaix with the teachings of Skuvault, to provide a suggested path for retrieving the pharmaceutical medications of Holmes from two or more locations in inventory, with the motivation of providing a recommended route to take in order to fulfill orders in the shortest amount of time (“Amazon and Chaotic Storage” section, fourth paragraph).
Claim 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Publication 20110184751A1) in view of Chudy (US Publication 20100030667A1) as applied to Claim 19 above, and further in view of Hill et al (US Publication 20060149587A1).
Regarding Claim 38, Holmes/Chudy teach the limitations of claim 19. Holmes does not disclose, but Hill, which is directed to an automated system and method of processing prescriptions, does teach further comprising, after inputting the data: updating a record of the portion of the one or more pharmaceutical medications in the memory of the electronic device to indicate pending or received status ([0042] teaches “central fill system 108 adds a central fill queue record to the transaction record being processed. The added central fill queue record includes a unique central fill queue identifier, the date and time the prescription request was received, the identity of the local pharmacy in pharmacy system 106 that originated the prescription request, the prescription request information, and a “pending” status flag”).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Holmes/Chudy with the teachings of Hill, to provide a record that it has been determined there is enough inventory available on-hand to fill a request and the order fulfillment process is continuing (Hill [0042]).
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20170066593A1, teaching using chaotic storage for pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical packages
US Publication 20120253509A1, teaching on a storage device for dispensing pharmaceutical medications
US Publication 20170053099A1, teaching on a prescription storage and retrieval system
US Publication 20150274333A1, teaching on apparatus, systems and method for dispensing medications using barcode scanning
“Why Chaotic Storage is Perhaps the Best Inventory Management System” by waspbarcode.com
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm 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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682