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 .
Claims 27 and 33 are cancelled. Claims 1-26, 28-32, and 34-57 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1, 4-26, 28-32, and 34-57, in the reply filed on 4/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims relate to a single general inventive concept. Applicant’s Remarks dated 4/16/26, page 10. This is not found persuasive because that the search strategy for each group differs, and the groups have different statuses in the art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Unelected claims 2-3 are withdrawn from consideration.1 Elected claims 1, 4-26, 28-32 and 34-57 will be examined as follows.
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.
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.
Claim 56 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses the “means for” language.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends on claim 33, which is cancelled. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will presume this claim to be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-9-17, 19-21, 23-26, 28-32, 33, 35 and 42-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ooyen, et al. (US 2012/0004770, herein Ooyen).2 Regarding claim 1, Ooyen teaches a system for enabling self-service access to at least one restricted medication in a retail environment, the system comprising: (a) a user interface configured to present at least one qualifying criteria (paragraph 0031) selected from the group consisting of a medical condition questionnaire, a list containing additional conditions for nonprescription use, a disclosure statement, a warning, or additional medical information (paragraph 0232); (b) an electronically activated locking device capable enabling or denying access to the at least one restricted medication based on responses to the at least one qualifying criteria selected from the group consisting of a medical condition questionnaire (paragraph 0144), a list containing additional conditions for nonprescription use, a disclosure statement, a warning, and additional medical information (paragraph 0232); and (c) at least one database capable of storing responses to the at least one qualifying criteria selected from the group consisting of a medical condition questionnaire, a list containing additional conditions for nonprescription use, disclosure statement, warnings, or additional medical information in at least one database (paragraph 0030). Regarding claim 4, Ooyen teaches the at least one restricted medication is a nonprescription drug with an additional condition for nonprescription use (paragraph 0163). Regarding claim 5, Ooyen teaches the at least one restricted medication can only be accessed by those individuals whose responses to the qualifying criteria qualify the individual to access the at least one restricted medication (paragraph 0031). Regarding claim 6, Ooyen teaches the qualifying criteria comprises questions in relation at least one selected from the list consisting of health characteristics of the individual, warnings about the characteristics of the medication, methods of medication use, and possible side effects (paragraph 0031). Regarding claim 7, Ooyen teaches the qualifying criteria is used to determine if the individual meets the requirements to access the at least one restricted medication (paragraph 0031). Regarding claim 8, Ooyen teaches the responses to the questions are required to be answered in such a way as to qualify the individual to access to the at least one restricted medication (paragraph 0031). Regarding claim 9, Ooyen teaches the individuals whose responses do not meet the qualifying criteria are restricted from accessing the at least one restricted medication (paragraph 0031). Regarding claim 10, Ooyen teaches the system notifies the individual to seek out authorized personnel if the individual fails to meet the qualifying criteria (paragraph 0232). Regarding claim 11, Ooyen teaches the system notifies authorized personnel when the individual does not meet the qualifying criteria (paragraph 0232). Regarding claim 12, Ooyen teaches the at least one restricted medication is in a dispensing fixture (paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 13, Ooyen teaches the dispensing fixture dispenses selected medication (paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 14, Ooyen teaches the dispensing fixture dispenses a selectable quantity of medication during an access event (paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 15, Ooyen teaches the medication dispensed by the dispensing fixture is selected by the individual attempting to access the medication (paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 16, Ooyen teaches the individual attempting to access the at least one restricted medication must select the restricted medication, interact with the user interface to meet qualifying criteria related to the restricted medication, wherein the dispensing fixture will dispense or enable access to the restricted medication if the individual meets the qualifying criteria (paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 17, Ooyen teaches the dispensing fixture enables access to certain medication contained within the dispensing fixture and restricts access to certain other restricted medication contained within the dispensing fixture (paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 19, Ooyen teaches the system can verify the age of the individual (Table 1). Regarding claim 20, Ooyen teaches qualifying criteria is presented to the individual via the user interface which may expose the individual to text, speech, email, text message, or other method of communication (paragraph 0306). Regarding claim 21, Ooyen teaches the individual is required to confirm receipt of the additional medication information before being granted access to the restricted medication (paragraph 0053). Regarding claim 23, Ooyen teaches the dispensing fixture has a door coupled to the electronically activated locking device (paragraph 0096). Regarding claim 24, Ooyen teaches the individual interacts with the user interface through a touchscreen integrated into the system (paragraph 0145). Regarding claim 25, Ooyen teaches the individual interacts with the user interface through a smartphone or other mobile computing device (paragraph 0216). Regarding claim 26, Ooyen teaches the individual accesses the dispensing fixture through one selected from the group consisting of self-service and assistance from authorized personnel (paragraph 0053). Regarding claim 28, Ooyen teaches a sensor is used to count units of restricted medication removed from or returned to the dispensing fixture (paragraph 0286). Regarding claim 29, Ooyen teaches the sensor is capable of uniquely identifying medication removed or replaced from the dispensing fixture (paragraph 0286). Regarding claim 30, Ooyen teaches the restricted medication detected by the sensor is correlated to a SKU number, or a group of SKU numbers, or similar product identification codes (paragraph 0162). Regarding claim 31, Ooyen teaches the sensor detects an identifying code of units of restricted medication such as a SKU number (paragraph 0162), UPC code, barcode, QR code, RFID tag information, or any product specific information. Regarding claim 32, Ooyen teaches the sensor detects the restricted medication removed by identifying a location of removal on the dispensing fixture and correlating that location with a layout design of the restricted medication (paragraph 0286). Regarding claim 35, Ooyen teaches the individual's purchase history and restricted medication removal history are identified as the individual's purchase behavior and are stored in the at least one database (paragraph 0030). Regarding claim 42, Ooyen teaches authorized personnel can be notified via a communication device (paragraph 0232). Regarding claim 43, Ooyen teaches suspicious events detected by the one sensor contained in the dispensing fixture can be transmitted to the communication device (paragraph 0232). Regarding claim 44, Ooyen teaches messages transmitted to the communication device may indicate the risk level of the individual or if they are a known offender (paragraph 0271). Regarding claim 45, Ooyen teaches a video surveillance recording system or security system is triggered or alerted when a suspicious event is detected (paragraph 0238). Regarding claim 46, Ooyen teaches the system can trigger the video surveillance or security system, when a suspicious event is detected, to bookmark or tag the video related to the suspicious event to create an audit trail (paragraph 0238). Regarding claim 47, Ooyen teaches the system can alert authorized personnel in real time, who are either local to the dispensing fixture, or remote from the dispensing fixture, when the suspicious event is detected (paragraph 0232). Regarding claim 48, Ooyen teaches he sensor measures a set of behaviors comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of duration during which the door is open, number of units removed during each door open event, number of units replaced during each door open event, subsequent door open events within the same dispensing fixture following the initial door open event and the number of visits by the same individual to another dispensing fixture over a period of time (paragraph 0268). Regarding claim 49, Ooyen teaches the set of behaviors from each restricted medication interaction event comprises behavior data of the individual and is stored in the at least one database (paragraph 0268). Regarding claim 50, Ooyen teaches statistical models are applied to the individual's behavior data to calculate the set of suspicious event thresholds that delineate normal shopping behaviors from suspicious shopping behaviors (paragraph 0269). Regarding claim 51, Ooyen teaches the set of suspicious event thresholds are periodically updated by the statistical models as additional behavior data of the individual is collected by the system (paragraph 0269). Regarding claim 52, Ooyen teaches at least one variable is used by the statistical models to calculate the set of suspicious event thresholds (paragraph 0269). Regarding claim 53, Ooyen teaches at least one variable corresponds to a percentage of shoppers estimated to be offenders or a database of risk factors associated with a store (paragraph 0269). Regarding claim 54, Ooyen teaches the system further comprises a real time notification or local alarm features if the set of behaviors of the individual are suspicious relative to the set of suspicious event thresholds (paragraph 0232). Regarding claim 55, Ooyen teaches personal identifying information of the individual and the confirmation of receipt of the additional medication information are stored in the at least one database (paragraph 0269). Regarding claim 56, Ooyen teaches a means of receiving personal identifying information of the individual selected from the group consisting of the individual's loyalty card information, cell phone number, retailer's app credentials, credit or bank card information, any smart phone app credentials, financial institution apps, government issued identification card and biometric information (Table 1). Regarding claim 57, Ooyen teaches the personal identifying information of the individual is coupled to a purchase transaction at the point of sale (paragraph 0232).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 34 and 36-41 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The cited art fails to teach the particular limitations recited in these claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 11:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.3
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 Applicant is reminded of rejoinder procedure as outlined in MPEP § 821.04.
2 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
3 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Prosecution Insights