DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/3036 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues:
In the previous rejection of claim 21, the Office alleges that Wachter describes that the tray 14 comprises one or more retaining grooves configured to maintain the tray 14 in an upright orientation while the tray 14 slides in and out of the respective opening and points to FIGS. 1 and 2 of Wachter (Action at pages 5 and 6). However, Wachter does not show or describe any mechanism to maintain the tray 14 in an upright orientation. While the Office alleges that grooves or rails can be mapped to the opening of the tray wall (Action at page 5), it is not clear how the opening of the tray wall would maintain the tray 14 in the upright orientation.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that the rejection of claim 21 is based on what is described in the originally filed specification and drawings as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner notes that consistent with such, Wachter discloses a groove (cutout formation of a cylindrical member) and/or at least one rail (represented as the outer wall of the cylindrical member). Examiner notes that the device operates as capable to be inserted in a housing, and exit a housing in an upright manner for dispensing. Thus, the device (groove/rail) is “configured to maintain the tray in an upright orientation while the tray slides in and out of the respective opening”. Examiner has provided no structure, based on the originally filed specification and drawings, which would distinguish from such.
Applicant Argues:
Also, Wachter describes that the movement of the tray 14 can be pivotal or compound, implying a rotating motion (Wachter, column 1 lines 59 to 61). Wachter also describes that the tray 14 could be rotatable within the interior of the housing 10 (Wachter, column 2 lines 55 to 61).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that Applicant’s device is likewise capable of being rotated, and Examiner notes that Wachter teaches an alternative embodiment in which the device can be rotated in the housing or outer of the housing. Examiner further notes that the claim does not require rotation in only one situation, only, that the device is configured to be maintained upright inner and outer of the housing, which is what Wachter’s device is configured to do.
For the reasons stated above, the claims stand rejected.
Drawings
The drawings were received on (06/30/2026) These drawings are unacceptable. The drawings of Figs. 7A and 7B include features which are an attempt to overcome the drawings objections submitted in the office action (02/27/2026). While the features amended to be included in the drawing have some relation to what was originally filed in the specification, the originally filed specification does not describe the said features as specifically amended, and as amended, would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the originally filed specification and originally filed drawings.
Applicant’s originally filed specification recites:
“The trays 453 may comprise one or more retaining grooves or rails to maintain the tray in an upright orientation when sliding in and out of the opening 451. The retaining grooves or rails may be configured such that the tray 453 is able to rotate once the tray 453 is withdrawn to its full extent from the case 410.”
Examiner notes that no further description has been given as to structure of such a retaining groove or rail. From the originally filed drawings what is seen at most is a groove-like cutout of a cylindrical member and/or the rail-like wall structure of a cylindrical housing. While applicant has amended the drawings to include another type of rail or groove like structure which extends along the outer wall of the cylindrical housing, such a rail or groove like structure has not been specifically described in the originally filed specification, and would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for there are many ways a rail or groove like structure could be represented which could and would differ from what the Applicant has amended, and thus, would make it non obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to know the originally filed specification was describing the exact configuration as newly amended by the Applicant.
This is further supported by Applicant’s description of “to maintain the tray in an upright orientation when sliding in and out of the opening 451”. As newly amended Applicant has presented a rail or groove which is an elongated member. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an elongate rail or groove may fit in a track or friction fit within a container, or have an extension piece which fits into the groove (as examples of what a rail and groove may be used for when trying to maintain a tray or drawer.) However, Applicant’s invention is designed to pivot or rotate, and having a side rail/groove, as newly presented by Applicant, does not clarify how the device is able to be pulled out and rotate, because, if the secondary members, as described by Examiner were present, there would appear to be some sort of interference which blocks a movement. Without any detailed or clear explanation of how the device is able to operate in such a dual manner, it would seem that the newly amended features are contradictory to the operation of the device, or, at minimum are insufficient to accurately show how the device operates as intended. Thus, Examiner finds that the amended features as present to be new matter.
Applicant’s originally filed specification recites:
A retaining lip at one end of the tray 453 may prevent the tray 453 from being fully
removed from the case 410.
Examiner notes that as mentioned above, the newly amended retaining lip appears to add a new structure which is not present in the originally filed specification. Thus, the amended illustration is new matter.
Applicant’s originally filed specification recites:
The retaining mechanism may lock one or more of the trays 453 in position when fully inserted into the case 410. According to an embodiment, the case 410 is formed without a lid.
Examiner notes that such a description, as originally filed, describes a vast range of mechanisms which allow for a sliding member to be locked within an enclosure. Applicant has amended the drawings to include a specific designed retaining mechanism which was not described in the originally filed specification. Thus, the newly amended illustration is new matter as described above.
Examiner has examined and maintained the rejection (02/27/2026) as originally presented in view of the originally filed specification, claims, and drawings as presented.
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, 20, and 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, 20, and 22:
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), and 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), 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).
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights