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 office action is responsive to the amendment filed 28 February 2025.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim is listed as “(Currently Amended)”, but has no altered claim language from the previous amendment filed 28 February 2025.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyanpur et al. (US Patent Application No. 20180060527 A1), hereinafter Kalyanpur, in view of Blanco (US Patent Application No. 20200394002 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1, Kalyanpur discloses a device (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1-3B, device 100) comprising: a housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1-3B, housing 102) comprising a chamber (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, chamber A, and an opening (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, opening B) in communication with the chamber (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, chamber A is in communication with opening B); a nozzle (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1-3B, nozzle 108) configured to dispense medication into a nostril (Kalyanpur: para. 0052) comprising a passageway (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, passageway C) therethrough and a housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D), wherein the housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D) is sized to be positioned within the opening (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D is sized to be positioned within opening B) and configured to slidably engage the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D is configured to slidably engage to housing 102; para. 0035) such that when the housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D) is slidably engaged to the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1-3B, housing 102), a nozzle (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1-3B, nozzle 108) is translatable from a completely extended position (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A) to a completely depressed position (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2), and wherein the passageway (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, passageway C) is positioned to be in communication with the chamber (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, chamber A is in communication with opening B) when the housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D) is positioned within the opening (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, opening B) and slidably engaged to the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D is configured to slidably engage to housing 102, thus allowing communication between opening B with chamber A; para. 0035); a first lock (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2-3A, solenoid locking mechanism 124) movable from an open position (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2, solenoid 124 position is unlocked; para. 0036) to a closed position (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A, solenoid 124 position is locked; para. 0036), wherein, when the housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D) is slidably engaged to the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D is configured to slidably engage to housing 102; para. 0035) and the first lock (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2-3A, solenoid locking mechanism 124) is in the closed position (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A, solenoid 124 position is locked; para. 0036), the first lock (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2-3A, solenoid locking mechanism 124) inhibits depression of the housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D) of the nozzle (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1-3B, nozzle 108) further into the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1-3B, housing 102) via the opening (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, opening B) of the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A, solenoid 124 blocks full movement of nozzle 108 towards surface 104a of housing 102; para. 0036), and wherein, when the housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D) is slidably engaged to the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D is configured to slidably engage to housing 102; para. 0035) and the first lock (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2-3A, solenoid locking mechanism 124) is in the open position (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2, solenoid 124 position is unlocked; para. 0036), the housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D) is uninhibited, by the first lock (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2-3A, solenoid locking mechanism 124), from depression further into the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1-3B, housing 102) via an opening (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, opening B) of the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2, solenoid 124 position is unlocked, allowing full range of movement of nozzle 108; para. 0036); a sensor (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3B, tactile switch 140) configured to provide a sensor signal (Kalyanpur: tactile switch 140 sends signal to circuit board 126); and electrical circuitry (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A, circuit board 126) configured to move the first lock (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2-3A, solenoid locking mechanism 124) from the open position (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2, solenoid 124 position is unlocked; para. 0036) to the closed position (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A, solenoid 124 position is locked; para. 0036) in response to the sensor signal (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1, sensor 134 sends a signal to circuit board 126 to move solenoid 124 to an unlocked position; para. 0044).
Kalyanpur does not expressly disclose that the sensor signal is indicative of a partially depressed position of the nozzle between the completely extended position and the completely depressed position.
Blanco teaches a sensor (Blanco: Fig. 2, optical sensor 214) configured to provide a sensor signal (Blanco: Fig. 2, optical sensor 214 produces signal; para. 0011 and para. 0030) indicative of a partially depressed position (Blanco: optical sensor 214 outputs signals of one or more positions of a target; para. 0030) and a completely depressed position (Blanco: para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensor of Kalyanpur to send signals indicative of a partially depressed position of a nozzle between a completely extended position and a completely depressed position as taught by Blanco in order to send a signal of a variety of target positions (Blanco: para. 0030 and para. 0042). Examiner interprets that if the sensor of Kalyanpur were modified to detect multiple positions of a target as taught by Blanco, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would allow for the indication of a plurality of depressed positions of a nozzle (the target), as the sensor target position would be changing during each depression position.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kalyanpur in view of Blanco discloses the device above, wherein, when the housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D) is slidably engaged to the housing (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D is configured to slidably engage to housing 102; para. 0035), the first lock (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2-3A, solenoid locking mechanism 124), sensor (Kalyanpur: Fig. 1, sensor 134), and electrical circuitry (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A, circuit board 126) are completely contained by the housing and nozzle (Kalyanpur: Fig. 2 shown above, housing interface D is configured to slidably engage to housing 102, resulting in the solenoid locking mechanism 124, sensor 126, and circuit board 134 being contained by housing 102 and nozzle 108).
Regarding claim 3, Kalyanpur in view of Blanco discloses the device above, wherein the sensor (Blanco: Fig. 2, optical sensor 214) comprises an optical sensor (Blanco: Fig. 2, optical sensor 214 is an optical sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensor of Kalyanpur to be an optical sensor as taught by Blanco as optical sensors in order to allow for remote determination of the position and/or movement of an object (Blanco: para. 0042).
Regarding claim 4, Kalyanpur in view of Blanco discloses the device above.
Kalyanpur does not expressly disclose that the housing interface comprises visual features thereon that when moved in relation to the sensor when the housing interface is slidably engaged to the housing causes the sensor to provide the sensor signal indicative of the partially depressed position.
Blanco teaches visual features (Blanco: para. 0030) that when moved in relation to the sensor (Fig. 2, optical sensor 214) causes the sensor to provide the sensor signal (Blanco: Fig. 2, optical sensor 214 produces signal; para. 0011 and para. 0030) indicative of the partially depressed position (Blanco: optical sensor 214 outputs signals of one or more positions of a target; para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the housing interface and sensor of the device of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco to comprise visual features thereon that when moved in relation to a sensor when a housing interface is slidably engaged to a housing causes a sensor to provide sensor signal indicative of a partially depressed position as taught by Blanco in order to allow for remote determination of the position and/or movement of an object (Blanco: para. 0042).
Regarding claim 5, Kalyanpur in view of Blanco discloses the device above, wherein the sensor is configured to provide sensor signals (Blanco: Fig. 2, optical sensor 214 produces signals; para. 0011 and para. 0030) indicative of a plurality of partially depressed positions (Blanco: optical sensor 214 outputs signals of one or more positions of a target; para. 0030) each between the completely extended position and the completely depressed position (Blanco: optical sensor 214 outputs signals of one or more positions of a target; para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensor signal of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco to be indicative of a plurality of partially depressed positions each between a completely extended position and a completely depressed position as taught by Blanco in order to allow for remote determination of the position and/or movement of an object (Blanco: para. 0042).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyanpur, in view of Blanco, in further view of Decock et al. (US Patent Application No. 20220379046 A1), hereinafter Decock.
Regarding claim 6, Kalyanpur discloses the device above.
The device of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco does not expressly disclose a first angled indentation on the housing interface, wherein the first lock comprises a first angled extension that is positioned within the first angled indentation when the first lock is in a closed position and the housing interface is slidably engaged to the housing, wherein the first angled indentation and the first angled extension are shaped such that when the first lock is in the closed position and the housing interface is slidably engaged to the housing, the first angled extension presses against the first angled indentation to inhibit depression of the housing interface further into the housing and the first angled extension is slidable against the first angled indentation to allow the nozzle to move toward a completely extended position.
PNG
media_image3.png
770
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Decock teaches a first angled indentation (Decock: Fig. 7A-7H, disengagement means 406) on a housing (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, formed by casing 450 and socket 20), wherein a first lock (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, locking means 403) comprises a first angled extension (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, lug 413) that is positioned within a first angled indentation (Decock: Fig. 6 shown above, indentation A) when the first lock (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, lug 413) is in a closed position (Decock: Fig. 7B, lug 413; para. 0104) and a housing interface (Decock: Fig. 1, applicator 102), is slidably engaged to the housing (Decock: Fig. 1 and 7A-7H, user is able to engage assistance device 1 by moving applicator 102, sliding into base 24 of dispensing device 10. Lock prevents movement of actuator 402 by pressing lug 413 of locking means 403 into indentation A; para. 0048 and 0101), wherein the first angled indentation (Decock: Fig. 6 shown above, indentation A) and the first angled extension (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, lug 413) are shaped such that when the first lock (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, locking means 403) is in the closed position (Decock: Fig. 7A, lug 413; para. 0101) and the housing interface (Decock: Fig. 1, applicator 102) is slidably engaged to the housing (Decock: Fig. 1and 7A-7H, user engages assistance device 1 by moving applicator 102, sliding into base 24 of dispensing device 10; para. 0048), the first angled extension (Decock: Fig. 7B, lug 413; para. 0104) presses against the first angled indentation (Decock: Fig. 6 shown above, indentation A) to inhibit depression of the housing interface (Decock: Fig. 1, applicator 102) further into the housing (Decock: Fig. 1 and 7A-7H, user is able to engage assistance device 1 by moving applicator 102, sliding into base 24 of dispensing device 10. Lock prevents movement of actuator 402 by pressing lug 413 of locking means 403 into indentation A; para. 0048 and 0101) and the first angled extension (Decock: Fig. 7B, lug 413; para. 0104) is slidable against the first angled indentation (Decock: Fig. 6 shown above, indentation A) to allow a nozzle (Decock: Fig. 1, formed by pump 11 and dispensing nozzle 12) to move toward a completely extended position (Decock: Fig. 1, 7A shown above, and 7B, user is able to engage assistance device 1 by moving applicator 102, sliding into base 24 of dispensing device 10. Lock when in an opened position allows movement of actuator 402 as lug 413 of locking means 403 slides past indentation A into disengagement means 406; para. 0048 and 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco to have a housing interface comprise a first angled indentation thereon, and wherein a first lock comprises a first angled extension that is positioned within a first angled indentation when a first lock is in a closed position and a housing interface is slidably engaged to a housing, wherein a first angled indentation and a first angled extension are shaped such that when a first lock is in a closed position and a housing interface is slidably engaged to a housing, a first angled extension presses against a first angled indentation to inhibit depression of a housing interface further into a housing and a first angled extension is slidable against a first angled indentation to allow a nozzle to move toward a completely extended position as taught by Decock in order to allow for relocking of the device without having to deliver a dose of a product, which avoids wasting product (Decock: para. 0005).
Regarding claim 7, Kalyanpur in view of Blanco and Decock discloses the device above, wherein the housing interface (Kalyanpur: Fig. 3A shown above, housing interface D) comprises a plurality of angled indentations (Decock: Fig. 6 shown above, indentations A), each of a plurality of angled indentations (Decock: Fig. 6 shown above, indentation A) individually aligned orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of a housing (Decock: Fig. 1 and 6 shown above, indentations A are aligned orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of base 24). and aligned to each other parallel to a longitudinal axis (Decock: Fig. 1 and 6 shown above, indentations A are aligned to each other parallel to a longitudinal axis of base 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco to have a housing interface comprise of a plurality of angled indentations thereon, each of a plurality of angled indentations individually aligned orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of a housing and aligned to each other parallel to a longitudinal axis in order to allow for a rest and locking position (Decock: para. 0101-0105).
Regarding claim 8, Kalyanpur in view of Blanco and Decock discloses the device above, comprising a housing (Decock: Fig. 1 and 6, formed by socket 20 and casing 450) comprising a chassis (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, casing 450), and a first lock (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, assistance device 1) comprising: an extension (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, lug 413) slidably translatable in relation to a chassis (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, lug 413 slidably translates via rotation in relation to casing 450) to move a first lock between an open and closed positions (Decock: Fig. 7B, assistance device 1 moves between an open position and closed position upon rotation of locking means 403, slidably translating lug 413 into a locked and unlocked position; para. 0101-0104), a cam (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, locking means 403) rotatable (Decock: para. 0098) to slidably translate an extension (Decock: Fig. 7B, rotation of locking means 403 slidably translates lug 413 into a locked and unlocked position; para. 0101) such that a rotation of a cam (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, locking means 403) is limited by engagement of a cam (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, locking means 403) to a chassis ((Decock: Fig. 6-7H, locking means 403 rotation is limited by reliefs 405 and 470 and of casing 450; para. 0094 and 0101), and a motor (Decock: Fig. 6, actuator 402, which comprises motor; para. 0018) rotatable (Decock: para. 0096) to move a cam (Decock: Fig. 6-7H, locking means 403 rotates via actuator 402; para. 0101) and in communication with an electrical circuitry (Decock: electronic control; para. 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco to have a housing comprising a chassis and a first lock comprising: an extension slidably translatable in relation to a chassis to move a first lock between open and closed positions, a cam rotatable to slidably translate an extension such that a rotation of a cam is limited by engagement of a cam to a chassis, and a motor rotatable to move a cam and in communication with an electrical circuitry as taught by Decock in order to contain and operate the locking means (para. 0100-0105).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyanpur in view of Blanco, in view of Fuller et al. (US Patent Application No. 20220088327 A1), hereinafter Fuller.
Regarding claim 9, Kalyanpur in view of Blanco discloses the device above comprising a nozzle and housing.
The device of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco does not expressly disclose that a nozzle and housing are separable from each other without damage a device.
Fuller teaches a nozzle (Fuller: Fig. 4A and 4B, nozzle 104) and a housing (Fig. 1A and 1B, housing 102) that are separable from each other without damage a device (Fig. 1B, nozzle 104 separates from housing 102; para. 0012 and 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco to comprise a nozzle and a housing that are separable from each other without damaging a device as taught by Fuller in order to change out nozzles used for a single dose delivery (Fuller, para. 0012).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyanpur in view of Blanco and Fuller, in further view of Bons et al. (US Patent No. 12,023,709), hereinafter Bons.
Regarding claim 10, Kalyanpur in view of Blanco and Fuller discloses the device above.
The device of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco and Fuller does not expressly disclose a second lock movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein, when a housing is positioned within an opening and a second lock is in a closed position, a second lock inhibits a nozzle from extending beyond a completely extended position, and wherein, when a housing interface is positioned within an opening and a second lock is in an open position, a nozzle in uninhibited, by a second lock, from extending beyond a completely extended position.
Bons teaches nozzle (Bons; claim 1; col 25, ln 42 – col 26, ln 27), that can be connected or separated via a bayonet lock or snapping/fast clamps (Bons; claim 1; col 25, ln 42 – col 26, ln 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Kalyanpur in view of Blanco and Fuller to comprise a second lock movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein, when a housing is positioned within an opening and a second lock is in a closed position, a second lock inhibits a nozzle from extending beyond a completely extended position, and wherein, when a housing interface is positioned within an opening and a second lock is in an open position, a nozzle in uninhibited, by a second lock, from extending beyond a completely extended position as locks such as bayonet locks and clamps that, in a closed position, would inhibit a nozzle from extending beyond a completely extended position and, in an open position, would allow a nozzle to be uninhibited and extend beyond a completely extended position are known in the art as taught by Bons (Bons; claim 1; col 25, ln 42 – col 26, ln 27).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyanpur, in view of Blanco, in further view of Holakovsky et al. (US Patent No. 8950393 B2), hereinafter Holakovsky.
Kalyanpur in view of Blanco discloses the device above.
Kalyanpur in view of Blanco does not expressly disclose a base piece; and a second lock movable from an open position to a closed position, wherein the housing comprises the opening in communication with the chamber and a second opening in communication with the chamber, wherein the base piece is sized to be positioned within the opening and to cover the opening, wherein, when the base piece is positioned within the opening and the second lock is in the closed position, the base piece is fixed in place by the second lock, and wherein, when the base piece is positioned within the opening and the second lock is in the open position, the base piece is movable to uncover the opening.
Holakovsky teaches a base piece (Holakovsky: Fig. 9, lower housing part 18); and a second lock (Fig. 9, comprising retaining element 19 and blocking portion 55) movable from an open position to a closed position (blocking portion 55 can be moved to free element 19 into an open position from a closed position; col 18, ln 41-51 and col 19, ln 7-14), wherein a housing (Fig. 9, comprising upper housing part 16 and lower housing part 18) comprises an opening (Fig. 9, mouthpiece 13) in communication with the chamber (Fig. 9, internal chamber of housing parts 16 and 18) and a second opening (housing can be opened from the bottom to detach housing part 18 from the device; col 5, ln 58-67) in communication with the chamber (Fig. 9, internal chamber of housing parts 16 and 18), wherein the base piece (Fig. 9, lower housing part 18) is sized to be positioned within the opening (Fig. 9, lower housing part 18 closes bottom opening of device; col 5, ln 58-67) and to cover the opening (Fig. 9, lower housing part 18 closes bottom opening of device; col 5, ln 58-67), wherein, when the base piece (Fig. 9, housing part 18) is positioned within the opening (Fig. 9, lower housing part 18 closes bottom opening of device; col 5, ln 58-67) and the second lock (Fig. 9, comprising retaining element 19 and blocking portion 55) is in the closed position (blocking portion 55 can be moved to free element 19 into an open position from a closed position; col 18, ln 41-51 and col 19, ln 7-14), the base piece (Fig. 3, housing part 18) is fixed in place by the second lock (blocking portion 55 can be moved to free element 19 into an open position from a closed position, preventing detachment of housing part 18; col 18, ln 41-51 and col 19, ln 7-14), and wherein, when the base piece (Fig. 3, housing part 18) is positioned within the opening (Fig. 9, lower housing part 18 closes bottom opening of device; col 5, ln 58-67) and the second lock (Fig. 9, comprising retaining element 19 and blocking portion 55) is in the open position (blocking portion 55 can be moved to free element 19 into an open position from a closed position; col 18, ln 41-51 and col 19, ln 7-14), the base piece (Fig. 9, housing part 18) is movable to uncover the opening (when blocking portion 55 is in initial position, housing part 18 can be removed; col 19, ln 7-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 20 August 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112 (a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 in view Kalyanpur in view of Blanco, in further view of Holakovsky as cited above.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-13 filed 20 August 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Applicants submit that the proposed modification of the sensor of Kalyanpur is ineffective because Blanco fails to describe how using fiducials for positioning/alignment of a substrate in a printing process the can be used to achieve a sensor configured to provide a sensor signal indicative of a partially depressed position of the nozzle between the completely extended position and the completely depressed position, as recited in claim 1. In other words, even if Blanco could be combined with Kalyanpur, the proposed combination of Kalyanpur and Blanco fails to show or describe the claimed a sensor configured to provide a sensor signal indicative of a partially depressed position of the nozzle between the completely extended position and the completely depressed position. Hence, Kalyanpur and Blanco, including the known generalized principle in the art, fail to teach or suggest all of the claimed features.”
This is not persuasive, as Blanco is cited for the specific limitation to detect and send a variety of target positions (Blanco: para. 0030 and 0042). If the sensor of Kalyanpur is modified by the sensor of Blanco, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the nozzle would be considered the target, and, therefore, a plurality of different positions could be attained. Blanco is not being cited for its entire structure, but for the specific limitation of a sensor detecting a variety of different target positions.
Applicant also argues:
“Applicant further submits that Blanco is not analogous to the claimed invention. MPEP § 2141.01(a) states "[i]n order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention", and "[a] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor."”
In response to applicant's argument that Blanco is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Blanco is not being cited for its entire structure, but for the specific limitation of a sensor detecting a variety of different target positions. This would be considered analogous to the sensor of the claimed invention, as it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by sensor.
Applicant also argues:
“Applicant submits that Blanco is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Blanco is directed a system and method for print utilizing quality data for printed target areas. See Blanco, e.g., at paragraph [0010]. In contrast, the claimed invention is directed to dispensing device including one or more locking mechanisms to prevent removal of a medicine vial and/or administration of dosages.”
In response to applicant's argument that Blanco is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Blanco is not being cited for its entire structure, but for the specific limitation of a sensor detecting a variety of different target positions. This would be considered analogous to the sensor of the claimed invention, as it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by sensor, and, therefore, be in the same field of endeavor as the claimed sensor.
Applicant also argues:
“Applicant submits that Blanco is also not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor(s). The claimed invention aims to solve the problem of patients misusing and/or abusing medication. See Published Application, e.g., at paragraph [0004]. As a further security measure, the claimed invention includes a sensor to provide a sensor signal indicative of a partially depressed position and electrical circuitry configured to move the first lock from the open position to the closed position in response to the sensor signal to prevent the user from administering multiple partial doses in an attempt to bypass the security of the dispensing device. See Published Application, e.g., at paragraph [0072]. In contrast, Blanco is concerned with positioning a substrate for a printing process. See Blanco, at paragraph [0030]. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Blanco is not reasonably pertinent because it neither (1) addresses the same problem nor (2) serves the same purpose as the device of claim 1. Thus, Blanco would not have logically commended itself to the attention of the inventor(s).”
In response to applicant's argument that Blanco is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Blanco is not being cited for its entire structure, but for the specific limitation of a sensor detecting a variety of different target positions. This would be considered analogous to the sensor of the claimed invention, as it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by sensor.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEI GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5908. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 4:00pm (CT).
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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.
/LEI GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /CHELSEA E STINSON/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783