Kali Care, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

15686143 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/686,143 08/24/2017 Navid Nick Afsarifard 113336-8006.US02 1052
153057 7590 09/30/2020
Perkins Coie LLP - Kali Care, Inc.
P.O. BOX 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247
EXAMINER
WAGGONER, TIMOTHY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
bcoleman@perkinscoie.com
ewelply@perkinscoie.com
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAVID NICK AFSARIFARD and SINA FATEH
Appeal 2020-002041
Application 15/686,143
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13–16, 20–31, and 35–42, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1–12, 17–19
and 32–34 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kali Care,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-002041
Application 15/686,143

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Of the claims on appeal, claims 13, 23, 28, and 38 are independent.
Claims 13 and 23 are directed to a “network-connected medication container
for monitoring adherence to a medication regimen,” whereas claims 28 and
38 are directed to a “method for monitoring adherence to a medication
regimen.” Independent claim 13 is reproduced below.
1. A network-connected medication container for monitoring
adherence to a medication regimen, said network-connected
medication container comprising:
a bottle configured to store a medication, wherein said
bottle defines an opening adapted to dispense medication;
conductive elements, wherein said conductive elements,
when in use, non-destructively generate conductive elements
data;
a motion sensor engaged with said bottle, wherein said
motion sensor generates motion data indicative of movement of
said bottle;
a processor configured to:
examine said motion data generated by said
motion sensor; detect an occurrence of an action
from said motion data;
activate said conductive elements responsive
to detecting said occurrence of said action;
identify a non-destructive change in said
conductive elements data, and
determine, based on said change, whether a
dispersal of said medication has left said bottle
through the opening; and
a wireless communication module configured to transmit
said motion data generated by said motion sensor and said
conductive elements data generated by said conductive elements
to a remote computing device across a network.

Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2020-002041
Application 15/686,143

3
EVIDENCE OF RECORD
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
Claims 13–16, 20, 23–25, 28–30, 35, and 38–40 are rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting as not patentably distinct from
claims 1–3, 5, and 11–17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,775,780 (“the ’780 patent”),
and claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 31, 36, 37, 41, and 42 are similarly rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting as not patentably distinct from
claims 1–17 of the ’780 patent in view of Rothschild. Final Act. 3–4.
Claims 13–16, 20–31, and 35–42 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rothschild and Sengstaken. Id. at 4–6.
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that Appellant does not seek review of the
Examiner’s nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 13–16, 20–
31, and 35–42. See Appeal Br. 4. Thus, we summarily affirm the
Examiner’s decision in that regard.
With respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–16, 20–31, and
35–42 as obvious over Rothschild and Sengstaken, Appellant argues the
claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 4–7. We deem independent claim 13 as
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Rothschild indisputably
discloses the claim limitations of a medication bottle having (1) conductive
elements that non-destructively generate data, (2) a processor configured to
identify a non-destructive change in the conductive elements and determine
whether medication has been dispensed fr0m the bottle, and (3) a wireless
communication module configured to transmit the conductive elements data
Name Reference Date
Sengstaken US 9,904,885 B2 Feb. 27, 2018
Rothschild US 2014/0058561 A1 Feb. 27, 2014
Appeal 2020-002041
Application 15/686,143

4
to a remote computing device across a network. See Final Act. 5; see also
Appeal Br. 5 (describing certain aspects of Rothschild’s “structure and
function”).
In rejecting claim 13, the Examiner concedes that Rothschild’s
medication bottle fails to include a motion sensor, and, as a result,
Rothschild’s processor fails to activate the conductive elements in response
to motion data from the motion sensor. See Final Act. 5. For those missing
limitations, the Examiner points to Sengstaken’s teaching of a medication
blister pack that includes a motion sensor and a processor for activating
conductive elements on the blister pack in response to motion data from the
motion sensor. See id. (citing Sengstaken, Figs. 7, 11); see also Sengstaken,
4:40–60 (motion sensor); 5:51–60 (conductive sensors). According to the
Examiner, a skilled artisan would have been led to modify Rothschild’s
medication bottle to include a motion sensor as taught by Sengstaken
because it would have allowed Rothschild’s conductive elements “to operate
in a lower power state” until actually needing to be activated for the purpose
of monitoring dispersal of the medication. Final Act. 5.
We do not perceive any error in the Examiner’s reasoning, and
Appellant does not persuade us to the contrary. More specifically, Appellant
contends that “a physical combination of Sengstaken with Rothschild would
destroy Rothschild” and that a skilled artisan would not have attempted to
combine the teachings of Rothschild and Sengstaken “as they differ greatly
in both form and operation.” Appeal Br. 4–5. According to Appellant,
“Rothschild is opened, where[as] Sengstaken is destroyed to produce an
[]opening.” Id. at 5.
Appeal 2020-002041
Application 15/686,143

5
Although it may be true that Rothschild’s bottle and Sengstaken’s
blister pack are opened differently, Appellant nonetheless fails to grasp the
Examiner’s reason of how a skilled artisan would have modified
Rothschild’s bottle with Sengstaken’s teachings. Nowhere does the
Examiner suggest replacing Rothschild’s teaching of non-destructible
sensors for the opening in its bottle with Sengstaken’s teaching of
destructible sensors for its blister pack. See Final Act. 5 (citing Rothschild
¶ 20, Fig. 2, elements 24). Rather, the Examiner relies on Sengstaken solely
for teaching an improvement to medication dispensing sensors by activating
the sensors in response to activation of a motion sensor (i.e., accelerometer
108). See Exr. Ans. 3 (citing Sengstaken, 4:37–60). In our view,
incorporating a motion sensor as taught by Sengstaken on Rothschild’s
medicine bottle in order to activate the non-destructible sensors around the
opening in Rothschild’s bottle would not destroy its function as a medicine
dispenser, but would rather improve it by preserving the power needed to
activate the sensors until the medicine bottle is actually opened for
dispensing the medicine.
In sum, because a skilled artisan would have viewed Sengstaken’s
motion sensor for activating medication dispensing sensors as an
improvement to Rothschild’s non-destructible medicine dispensing sensors
around the bottle’s opening, we conclude that the Examiner properly
combined the teachings of Rothschild and Sengstaken. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 13–16, 20–31, and 35–42.
Appeal 2020-002041
Application 15/686,143

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed
13–16, 20–31,
35–42
103(a) Rothschild,
Sengstaken
13–16, 20–31,
35–42

13–16, 20–31,
35–42
Double Patenting 13–16, 20–31,
35–42

Overall
Outcome
13–16, 20–31,
35–42

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED