DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 11 and 20-25 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Bernard Wachter (US 4,180,082). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of trays comprises one or more retaining grooves or rails configured to maintain the tray in an upright orientation while the tray slides in and out of the respective opening, as described in claim 21, a retaining lip disposed at one end of the tray, the retaining lip configured to prevent the tray from being fully removed from the case, as described in claim 23, and retaining mechanism configured to lock one or more trays of the plurality of trays in position when the one or more trays are fully inserted into the case, as recited in claim 25, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 11 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard Wachter (US 4,180,082 – hereinafter Wachter) in view of Kietzmann et al. (US 2018/0256811 A1 – hereinafter Kietzmann).
Re Claims 11 and 20:
Wachter discloses a packaging assembly comprising: a case (10) configured to at least partially contain a (product), the case (10) formed as a box having an opening (opening that allows tray 14 to enter and exit – see Fig. 2); and a tray (14), wherein the tray (14) is configured to contain a (product) and is arranged to slide longitudinally out of the case (10) through a respective opening (opening that allows tray 14 to enter and exit – see Fig. 2) (see Figs. 1 and 2), and wherein the tray (14) is configured to rotate (see Figs. 2-4) about a longitudinal axis of the tray (14) until an open side (near 30 – see Fig. 3) of the tray (14) faces downwards (see Fig. 4) and the (product) contained in the tray (14) falls out of the tray (14) (see Figs. 1-6), but fails to teach a plurality of injection devices for delivering a medicament; the case formed as a box having a plurality of openings; and a plurality of trays; wherein each tray of the plurality of trays is configured to contain a respective injection device of the plurality of injection devices and is arranged to slide longitudinally out of the case through a respective opening of the plurality of openings, and wherein each tray of the plurality of trays is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the tray until an open side of the tray faces downwards and the injection device contained in the tray falls out of the tray.
Kietzmann teaches a plurality of injection devices (10) for delivering a medicament; a case (100) formed as a box having a plurality of openings (151); and a plurality of (dispensing sections – at 151); wherein each (dispensing section – at 151) of the plurality of (dispensing sections – at 151) is configured to contain a respective injection device (10) of the plurality of injection devices (10) (see Figs. 1-11b). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wachter with that of Kietzmann, to provide a duplication of parts, so as to store as much product in a dispensable manner according to required needs by a user. Examiner further notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter 1987). Therefore, it would have been obvious, in view of the combination as cited, to provide wherein each tray of the plurality of trays is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the tray until an open side of the tray faces downwards and the injection device contained in the tray falls out of the tray, since Wachter discloses an elongated structure, capable of longitudinally sliding out a housing, and then being rotated to an inverted position so that the product contained within is dispensed by falling from the elongated structure. So long as the product is capable of fitting within, then the device would function the same without any additional inventive skill. Examiner further notes, that duplication of parts would allow for a plurality of trays arranged to slide longitudinally out of the case through a respective opening of the plurality of openings, for such would not change the primary purpose of the Wachter invention, and no new and unexpected result would be produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Further Re Claims 21-22:
Wachter discloses wherein a tray (14) comprises one or more retaining grooves (see groove opening of tray wall as groove) or rails (see tray wall as rail or two sided rails) configured to maintain the tray (14) in an upright orientation while the tray (14) slides in and out of the respective opening (opening that allows tray 14 to enter and exit – see Fig. 2) (see Figs. 1 and 2) (Examiner notes that such is consistent with what is shown in Figs. 7A-7B of Applicant’s invention).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachter in view of Kietzmann and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 2007/0141199 A1 – hereinafter Ishikawa).
Re Claim 23:
Wachter in view of Kietzmann discloses wherein a tray comprises a retaining (detent), the retaining (detent) configured to prevent the tray from being fully removed from the case (see col. 1 lines 64-68 of Wachter), but fails to specifically teach a retaining lip disposed at one end of the tray, the retaining lip configured to prevent the tray from being fully removed from the case.
Ishikawa further in view teaches a retaining lip (42) disposed at one end of a tray (14); the retaining lip (42) configured to prevent the tray (14) from being fully removed from a case (10) (see Figs. 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wachter in view of Kietzmann with that of Ishikawa to stop a tray at a desired position with respect to a housing so as to allow dispensing of product contained within.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachter in view of Kietzmann and further in view of Charles Kolodny (US 1,838,558 – hereinafter Kolodny).
Re Claim 24:
Wachter in view of Kietzmann discloses wherein an outer end of a tray (14) comprises a (knob) (12) for pulling the tray (14) (see Figs. 1-2 of Wachter), but fails to teach a ring, and wherein an internal diameter of the ring is large enough to allow passage of a finger through the ring.
Kolodny further in view teaches a ring (19), and wherein an internal diameter of the ring (19 – pull ring) is large enough to allow passage of a finger through the ring (see Figs. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wachter in view of Kietzmann with that of Kolodny to provide an alternative pulling structure for sliding a drawer/tray/sliding member as known within the art.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachter in view of Kietzmann and further in view of Larry C. Sledge (US 5,275,291 – hereinafter Sledge).
Re Claim 25:
Wachter in view of Kietzman discloses the device of claim 11, but fails to teach a retaining mechanism configured to lock one or more trays of the plurality of trays in position when the one or more trays are fully inserted into the case.
Sledge further in view teaches a retaining mechanism (756) configured to lock one or more trays in position when the one or more trays are fully inserted into the case (see Fig 27, see Figs. 1-32b). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wachter in view of Kietzmann with that of Sledge to lock a container in a closed position when not in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651