DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is in reply to an application filed 2 June 2025, which claims domestic priority to applications with dates as old as 14 November 2005.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2 June 2025 has been considered by the Office to the extent indicated.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings contain lines of insufficient weight, text of insufficient size and/or shading that make the drawings illegible, see Figs. 1-34. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: dispensing module, communication module and security module in claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations dispensing module, communication module, security module and processing module has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder module coupled with functional language dispensing, communication, security and processing without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the first incomplete paragraph on page 16 of the specification as filed indicates that the various modules “can be implemented with hardware components, software components, or a combination thereof.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Shusterman (U.S. Patent 6,471,087 B1), hereinafter Shusterman, in view of Ratnakar (U.S. PG-Pub 2006/0124655 A1), hereinafter Ratnakar, further in view of Burg et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2009/0259486 A1), hereinafter Burg.
As per claim 1, Shusterman discloses a therapeutic hub (Shusterman, Figs. 2A-2B), comprising:
a dispensing device comprising a dispensing module for control of delivery of at least one medicament to be taken by a patient (Shusterman, Fig. 2A #212 and Figures 8-15),
a communication module (Fig. 8 #800) for control of transmitting and receiving data via at least one communication port (Fig. 2 #208; or Fig. 8 # 826), the data including compliance information of the patient (Shusterman, C7, L22-25 and C14, L54 to C15, L6);
a first cavity in communication with a dispensing output for storing the at least one medicament before being dispensed to the patient via the dispensing output (Shusterman, dosing drawer at Fig. 8 #832);
and a second cavity in communication with the first cavity for storing medicament removed from the first cavity but not dispensed to the patient (Shusterman, Fig. 8 where recovery drawer #834, which stores medication communicated from dosing drawer (through the trap door #836) once the dosing interval has expired, see C13, L46-63.);
a user interface for receiving user input to the dispensing device and providing … audio output to a user (Shusterman, Fig. 8 #s 806 and 804 and C12, lines 33-47. Shusterman also discloses displaying a visual message, see the display means of Fig. 8 #802.),
wherein the dispensing module is configured to cause the medicament removed from a first cavity but not dispensed to the patient to be stored in a second cavity (Shusterman, Fig. 8 where recovery drawer #834, which stores medication communicated from dosing drawer (through the trap door #836) once the dosing interval has expired, see C13, L46-63.),
when a signal is received indicating a change in prescription ... (Shusterman, Fig. 8 where recovery drawer #834, which stores medication communicated from dosing drawer (through the trap door #836) once the dosing interval has expired, see C13, L46-63. Expiration of the dosing interval is determined via a signal from the microcontroller which controls when the trap door is to open, and therefore release the medication that is no longer to be taken from the dosing drawer to the recovery drawer. It is the Office’s position that a signal indicating the removal of a medication for a patient to take due to it no longer being within the dosing time interval would comprise a signal is received indicating a change in prescription.);
wherein the dispensing module is configured to track the movement or non-movement of medicament by scanning medicament packaging using a sensor, whereby the movement of the medicament is determined by a change in the presence of the medicament packaging (Shusterman discloses a microcontroller that monitors whether a medicament has been dispensed by monitoring whether the dosing drawer has been removed or not removed with the medication, see C12L65-C13L11 and C18l66-C19L9; the dosing drawer can be considered as the medicament packaging.).
Shusterman fails to explicitly disclose displaying video output to the user via the user interface, implementing a remote change of prescription initiated by a healthcare provider, and a barcode scanner, radio frequency (RFID) reader, or light sensor.
Ratnakar teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide implementing a remote change of prescription initiated by a healthcare provider and use of a RFID reader in doing so (Ratnakar, paragraphs 35, 43, 44 and 47) because to do so would result in a drug dispensing system that could provide efficient, safe and secure means of modifying a patient’s treatment regimen.
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 drug dispensing system of Shusterman with Ratnakar’s implementing a remote change of prescription initiated by a healthcare provider and use of RFID with a drug dispensing system because to do so would result in a drug dispensing system that could provide efficient, safe and secure means of modifying a patient’s treatment regimen.
Neither Shusterman nor Ratnakar disclose displaying video output to the user via the user interface, however Burg teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications at the time of the invention to provide the display of a video output via a user interface (Burg, paragraphs 93 and 96) because to do so would result in a drug dispensing system that could provide output to a patient in multiple forms, including audio, visual and video,
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 drug dispensing system of Shusterman/Ratnakar with Burg's providing of a video output via a user interface, because to do so would result in a drug dispensing system that could provide output to a patient in multiple forms, including audio, visual and video, thereby providing multiple avenues of communication with a patient regarding prescription compliance, thereby increasing the safety and reliability of a patient's healthcare program.
Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
The Office notes there are multiple elements in the claims that will be interpreted as intended use. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04. The Examiner notes the recited prior art has the capability to perform the limitations indicated as intended use. The following limitations comprise an intended use of the invention:
1. a dispensing module for control of delivery …,
a communication module for control of transmitting and receiving data …
for storing the at least one medicament ....
for storing medicament removed ....
the communication module is suitable for receiving instructions …;
a user interface for receiving user input ….
The recited prior art has the capability to perform these intended use limitations as shown above. Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations.
As per claims 3-7, 9, 13 and 14, Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg disclose claim 1, discussed above. Shusterman also discloses:
3. wherein the at least one communication port comprises a wired connection port (Shusterman, C14, L54-65, where the communication port 826 can be a serial port.);
4. wherein the dispensing device further comprises a processing module for analyzing input provided by a peripheral device (smart card interface #810) in communication with the dispensing device and outputting the analyzed input to the user interface or the communication module (port #826) for transmission to a device in communication with the dispensing device (The various devices or the PC that communicates with the dispensing device, see C14, L54 to C15, L6). Note that the microcontroller receives dosage data through the smart card interface from the carousel (C15, L28-50), which is analyzed with respect to the observed patient compliance data, and then provided for communication via port #826.);
5. wherein the at least one communication port (Fig. 2A and 7 #208) is configured to communicate with one or more peripheral devices selected from the group consisting of a blood pressure cuff, a weight or BMI scale, an intraocular pressure measurement device, an ophthalmologic pathology screening, diagnostic or treatment device, a breath analyzer, a glucometer, a HBA1C monitor, a heart or cardiovascular monitor, a blood oxygen monitor or sensor, and a respiratory monitor (Shusterman, Fig. 7.);
6. wherein the at least one communication port (Fig. 2A and 7 #208; or Fig. 8 #826) is configured to communicate with a smart phone or computer (Fig. 2B #202 or C14, L54 to C15, L6), wherein the smart phone or computer provides a processing control for features of the dispensing device (Shusterman, C7, L23-26, or C14, L54 to C15, L6.);
7. wherein the dispensing device is configured to provide a signal to the patient indicating that it is time for the patient to perform an action by generating an audio and/or visual signal from the user interface of the dispensing device (Shusterman, Fig. 15A #1008-1012.);
9. wherein the dispensing device is configured to receive a control signal via the at least one communication port, wherein the control signal provides a remote control of one or more functions of the dispensing device (Shusterman, C12, L52-64 and C13, L22-26.);
13. wherein the dispensing device further comprises a security module for the communication module, the security module providing at least one security feature from the group consisting of encryption of data transmitted from the communication module and verification of third party source permissions for control operations of the dispensing device received via the at least one communication port (Shusterman, C12, L52-64 and C13, L22-26, where one of multiple healthcare workers can log into the device, which indicates that they have permissions to communicate with the device and remotely control it.);
14. wherein the dispensing device further comprises a biometric reader or personalized registration device and a security module for analyzing a signal received from the biometric reader or personalized registration device (Shusterman, C12, L52-64 and C13, L22-26, where one of multiple healthcare workers can log into the device, which indicates that they have permissions to communicate with the device and remotely control it.).
The Office notes there are multiple elements in the claims that will be interpreted as intended use. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04. The Examiner notes the recited prior art has the capability to perform the limitations indicated as intended use. The following limitations comprise an intended use of the invention:
4. … a processing module for analyzing input provided by a peripheral device in communication with the dispensing device and outputting the analyzed input to the user interface or the communication module for transmission to a device in communication with the dispensing device; and
19. … a security module for analyzing a signal received from the biometric reader or personalized registration device.
As the claim contains intended use recitations, the recited prior art has the capability to perform these intended use limitations. Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations.
As per claim 12, Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg disclose claim 1, discussed above. Shusterman also discloses: wherein a device comprises a GPS unit, accelerometer, or gyroscope unit for providing positioning data, wherein the communication module is configured to transmit the positioning data to a third party (GPS Monitor of Shusterman Fig. 5 #510). The Office notes that an unlimited number of parties can interface with the data provided by the system of Shusterman.
The Office notes that this limitation of Shusterman is directed to a garment device containing various sensors that is part of the therapeutic hub, not to the dispenser device that is part of the therapeutic hub. Although this is a secondary device, Shusterman teaches that it would be old and well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the medical device arts to modify the various functions of the dispenser device with the GPS functionality of the garment device because to do so would merely comprise: combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; and it would be “obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, because all of the elements are contained within the single reference and all are directed to providing healthcare services for one patient.
Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the components of Shusterman into a single structure, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results. See In re Larsen, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) “use the of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed [in the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See MPEP 2144.04.
The Office notes there are multiple elements in the claims that will be interpreted as intended use. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04. The Examiner notes the recited prior art has the capability to perform the limitations indicated as intended use. The following limitations comprise an intended use of the invention:
12. … a GPS unit, accelerometer, or gyroscope unit for providing positioning data ... .
As the claim contains intended use recitations, the recited prior art has the capability to perform these intended use limitations. Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg, further in view of Varvarelis et al. (U.S. Patent 7,359,765 B2), hereinafter Varvarelis.
As per claim 2, Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg disclose claim 1, discussed above. Shusterman also discloses the at least one communication port at Fig. 2 #208; or Fig. 8 # 826. Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg fails to explicitly disclose the use of an antenna in communications.
However, Varvarelis teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the use of an antenna in data communications (Varvarelis, Fig. 5 #142) in order to provide a system that could communicate with various other devices wirelessly and therefore reduce the amount of time required to transfer drug data between the drug dispensing device and the other devices.
Therefore, that 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 Shusterman/Ratnakar/ Burg directed to a communication port in data communications with Varvarelis’ use of an antenna in communications, because to do so would result in a drug dispensing system that could communicate with various other devices wirelessly and therefore reduce the amount of time required to transfer drug data between the drug dispensing device and the other devices. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg, further in view of Passamante (U.S. Patent 5,752,621 A), hereinafter Passamante.
As per claim 8, Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg disclose claim 1, discussed above. Shusterman also discloses wherein the dispensing device is configured to provide a signal to the patient indicating that it is time for the patient to perform an action by generating an audio and/or visual signal (Shusterman, Fig. 15A #1008-1012). Shusterman discloses a peripheral device wired or wirelessly connected with the dispensing device via the communication module (Shusterman receives dosage data through the smart card interface from the carousel (C15, L28-50)).
However, Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg fails to explicitly disclose a generating an audio or visual signal from a peripheral device. Passamante teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide generating an audio or visual signal from a peripheral device, see the remote alarms of Fig. 6 #225, which is connected by a radiofrequency signal.
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 Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg directed to providing a signal by generating a signal with Passamante's generation of a signal from a peripheral device, because to do so would result in a drug dispensing system that could still indicate that a patient needs to perform an action, such as taking a medication at a particular time, even when the patient is away from the drug dispenser. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg, further in view of Bardy et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2012/0089417 A1), hereinafter Bardy.
As per claim 10, Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg disclose claim 1, discussed above. Shusterman also discloses wherein the communication module transmits data to a … database (the PC of Shusterman, Fig. 2B #202 receives data from the communication module #208, and stores information in a database C4, L64-67).
Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg fails to explicitly disclose the transmission of data to cloud storage. Bardy, however, teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the use of cloud storage at Fig. 1 #20 and paragraph 42, in order to transmit and store data locally, in the intranet, and to a cloud storage facility,
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 Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg directed to transmitting data to a database with Bardy's transmission of data to cloud storage, because to do so would result in a drug dispensing system that could transmit and store data locally, in the intranet, and to a cloud storage facility, thereby increasing the efficiency and reliability of communication and storage of patient data. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claim 11, Shusterman/Ratnakar/Burg disclose claim 10, discussed above. Shusterman also discloses wherein the communication module is further configured to control access of a peripheral device to the … database (the PC of Shusterman, Fig. 2B #202 receives data from the biosensors #206 through the communication module #208, and stores information in a database, see Fig. 16). Shusterman fails to explicitly disclose the use of cloud storage. Bardy, however, teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the use of cloud storage at Fig. 1 #20 and paragraph 42, in order to transmit and store data locally, in the intranet, and to a cloud storage facility. The motivation for making this modification of the teachings of Shusterman is the same as that set forth, above, in the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
Unused but cited relevant prior art includes:
Bear et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2008/0119958 A1), which discloses a medication dispenser with integrated monitoring system.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
3 June 2026
Prosecution Insights