DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues:
Regarding Claim 1, the Office Action does not present sufficient evidence that Wijngaarden teaches or even suggests wherein the one or more discs each comprise a projection extending from a first side thereof and a recess extending from a second side thereof the projection and the recess being arranged around the central hole. The Office Action concedes that Albright does not disclose the foregoing limitation, and therefore relies on Wijngaarden. The Office Action refers to element 35d as a projection.
This is not supported by Wijngaarden, which discloses that, "a plurality of driving pulleys or sprockets 35 which are provided with an noncircular opening 35 d for receiving the correspondingly shaped noncircular 7 shape of the driving shaft 33." Wijngaarden, paragraph [0040]. It is not clear how an "opening" corresponds to a "projection." The Office Action also correlates the singular element 35d with two separate claimed elements: the projection and the central hole. This is not a permissible form of rejection.
Even further, the rejection relies on the conclusory statement that Wijngaarden discloses "opposite side of projection which allows shaft to enter disc," which allegedly corresponds to the claimed recess. There is no illustrated view, in Wijngaarden, of the "opposite side," so the statement, "opposite side of projection which allows shaft to enter disc," is not supported by evidence and is therefore conclusory. It is not at all clear what "opposite side" refers to, and the citations to reference numerals in Wijngaarden is confusing.
In another aspect, the subsequent limitation, wherein the one or more discs that are adjacently located form-fitting together and maintaining their mutual angular orientation by the projection being received by the recess thereby enabling modularity when there is a need for alternatingly using the medicine unit container for different medicine unit types, further limits the projection and the recess, but the Office Action relies on Dirkx for this limitation. This does not logically make sense. If Wijngaarden allegedly discloses structure corresponding with the claimed recess and projection, why are not all limitations of the claimed recess and projection met by Wijngaarden? Applicant believes the answer is in the foregoing paragraph; there is no illustrated view, in Wijngaarden, of the "opposite side," so there is no evidence of a recess, let alone a recess that also meets the other limitations of Claim 1.
The structure and relationship of the projection and recess in the rejection is wholly unclear and it appears that the same structure may be invoked for the two separate claim elements, central hole and recess. What is the "central hole" and what is the "recess"? How does the Office Action propose that a projection is "received" by a recess in Wijngaarden, as required by Claim 1? Why does the Office Action state that Wijngaarden teaches a projection and recess, but further limitations of the projection and recess must be satisfied by Dirkx?
Regarding Claim 1, the reasoning supporting the rejection of Ablright in view of Wijngaarden is insufficient, such reasoning being required to maintain a primafacie case of obviousness. "Obviousness is a question of law, based on underlying factual findings, including what a reference teaches, whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine references, and any relevant objective indicia of nonobviousness." Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc., 874 F.3d 724, 728 (Fed Cir 2017)(emphasis added).
If not and there is some gap/play therebetween, then what stability or support is provided? There is insufficient evidence presented to answer these questions. In another aspect, there is no clear need or benefit realized by Albright for any additional stability or support, where Albright discloses that the "shaft 25 has a square cross-section and the openings 23, 23' and 23" in the carriages are also of square cross-section." Albright, column 4, lines 10-14. If the square shaft 25 supports the carriages in Albright, then what need or benefit is there for the alleged projection and recess arrangement of Wijngaarden? Moreover, Albright describes a tightly packed stack of elements contained within a container with no allowances for any type of movement other than the intended rotational movement. How does Wijngaarden lend any technical benefit to Albright?
Regarding Claims 26, 32, and 33, there is again an evidentiary deficiency with respect to the claimed "recess." As before discussed, the rejection does not even provide a citation to a reference numeral or an explanation as to the correspondence of structure. Here, there is also not even clear evidence provided as to the "projection." Thus, a primafacie case of obviousness has not been established.
Examiner’s Response:
Claim 1 describes:
“a plurality of separating planes dividing the container body into a plurality of storeys”
“a plurality of rotatable compartment housings respectively located within the plurality of storeys…each of the plurality of rotatable compartment housings comprising: one or more discs….and the one or more discs comprising a central hole”
“wherein the one or more discs each comprise a projection extending from a first side thereof and a recess extending from a second side thereof, the projection and the recess being arranged around the central hole”
“wherein the one or more discs that are adjacently located form-fitting together and maintaining their mutual angular orientation by the projection being received by the recess thereby enabling modularity”
Examine notes that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes that Applicant has not specifically described the one or more discs comprising a central hole in the specification or a recess extending from a second side thereof. Such is further not shown in the Drawings.
What the specification describes is a disc having an annular projection (42) for centering an adjacent separating plane (7); alternatively, the specification describes another embodiment in which there is no projection and instead the disc comprises a recess which is to engage with an annular rim of a separating plane. The specification even further describes that a disc may have a recess for receiving a protrusion from another disc, in what appears to be a third type of embodiment.
The drawings do not specifically show “alternatively, the specification describes another embodiment in which there is no projection and instead the disc comprises a recess which is to engage with an annular rim of a separating plane. The specification even further describes that a disc may have a recess for receiving a protrusion from another disc, in what appears to be a third type of embodiment.”
Therefore, it is unclear as to what the Applicant is arguing and claiming. Examiner has interpreted the claim as best understood in view of an embodiment in which the discs connect together as briefly described by the specification. Applicant appears to argue the specifics of another embodiment which is not specifically claimed in claim 1. If Applicant’s argument is that the recess is the portion of the storey member, then claim 1 has not specifically claimed such a feature since claim 1 describes the recess as part of the disc. Furthermore, projection, recess, and central hole are interpreted, as broadly in view of one of ordinary skill in the art, and as written in the claim: “wherein the one or more discs each comprise a projection extending from a first side thereof and a recess extending from a second side thereof, the projection and the recess being arranged around the central hole”. Thus, a projection would need to be on one side, a recess on another, and a hole between. Applicant has not described claim 1 in such a way that would distinguish from such, especially where there are no specifics given within the specification or drawings as to what is actually being claimed, as described by Examiner above.
Examiner notes that “Wijngaarden teaches wherein one or more discs (35) each comprise a projection (35d) extending from a first side thereof and a recess (opposite side of projection which allows shaft to enter disc) extending from a second side thereof, the projection (35d) and the recess (opposite side of projection which allows shaft to enter disc) being arranged around a central hole (at 35d).”
-The projection is the section (35d)
-The recess is the entry point of the shaft from under the disc which allows the shaft to extend through each disc as shown in Fig. 4
-the central hole is the space between the entry point recess and the projection (35d)
Examiner notes that Dirkx teaches “wherein one or more (levels) that are adjacently located form-fitting together and maintaining their mutual angular orientation (see Fig. 1) by a projection (5’, 6’) being received by a recess (8, 8’) thereby enabling modularity when there is a need for alternatingly using the (levels) for different (products).”
Dirkx is used to specifically show the opposite side recess entry point where, while it may be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that a recess would be needed for the shaft to enter through the disc, Wijngaarden does not specifically show the feature. Dirkx shows a projection (at 6’), a recess (at 8), and a central hole (the space between 8 and 6’).
Therefore, Examiner finds that the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as recited in claim 1. Examiner further finds that in view of Applicant’s arguments, it is unclear as to which embodiment is being claimed in claim 1 and alternative embodiments to that of which is shown in Applicant’s drawings are not either specifically disclosed or labeled, thus, further making the claim and Applicant’s arguments unclear. Examiner has interpreted claim 1 as best understood in view of such.
Applicant Argues:
Regarding Claim 1, Dirkx is not analogous art. "In 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." MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if. (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Id.
With respect to the field of endeavor test, there is no evidence that Dirkx is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter. "When determining whether the relevant field of endeavor test is met, the examiner should consider explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). (internal quotations omitted). The field as defined by the International Patent Classification is different from the present application (A61J, B65D, and G07F of the present application vs. A47B, A47F, and B65D of Dirkx). The field as defined by the specifications themselves is different (in the present application, "a medicine unit container for use in a medicine unit delivery device" vs. in Dirkx, "the art of stacked rotatable tray sets"). Moreover, the function and structure of the claimed subject matter does not overlap with the function and structure of the article described in Dirkx.
With respect to the reasonably pertinent test, there is no evidence that Dirkx is reasonably pertinent to the claimed subject matter. "In order for a reference to be reasonably pertinent to the problem, it must logically have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). Dirkx addresses the technical challenges of removal and replacement of selected trays, and convenient access for cleaning. The present application addresses the technical challenges of "special medicines ... that are fragile, or (relatively) seldomly used, or that have a limited shelf life, and that should therefore not be stacked in the same space but handled with care." In view of the foregoing - that Dirkx does not relate in any appreciable respect to the present application - it follows that the Office Action's reliance on Dirkx is only explainable by hindsight reasoning.
The pertinence of the reference as a source of solution to the inventor's problem must be recognizable with the foresight of a person of ordinary skill, not with the hindsight of the inventor's successful achievement.
Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed Cir 2019).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that Dirx is reasonably pertinent to stacking of trays/levels together for rotational angular movement. Dirkx is not used to teach medications.
Applicant Argues:
Regarding Claim 1, the alleged "recess (8, 8')" of Dirkx is not within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed recess.
The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation.
Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings.
MPEP 2111. Dirkx describes the elements, 8, 8', as "a part cylindrical cavity." This does not correspond to the claimed "recess." Such interpretation of the claim to include the part cylindrical cavity in its scope is also not consistent with the drawings (see, e.g., Fig. 3, where the recess is arranged in the center of the disc and is defined by a continuous octagonal wall), or reasonable interpretations of the term "recess." The Office Action's interpretation also does not comport with the claim language itself, where Claim 1 also requires maintaining their mutual angular orientation by the projection being received by the recess.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., where the recess is arranged in the center of the disc and is defined by a continuous octagonal wall) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Such a feature argued by Applicant is neither specifically claimed in claim 1 or specifically labeled and described in the specification or the drawings. Fig. 3 only describes a central axis (36) with no specific description of what appear to be a projection, being a recess defined by an octagonal wall. Based on Applicant’s arguments and drawings, it is unclear as to what is being claimed. If the recess is intended to be what appears to be part of a projection piece extending from the top of the disc member, then the claim should describe such, and furthermore, such should be clearly described in the specification and labeled in the drawings.
Applicant Argues:Regarding Claim 1, the proposed modification of Albright with Dirkx would change the principle of operation of Albright.
If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.
MPEP 2143.01(VI). The part cylindrical cavity of Dirkx allows it to be snapped-off/unclipped from the tray to which it is attached, but Albright functions based on the connection of carriages 20 being by a centrally located shaft 25, such arrangement providing for each carriage 20 having compartments distributed about 360 degrees of the carriages 20. There is no way for the part cylindrical cavity of Dirkx to be integrated into Albright's device, and if it were to be, it would change the principle of operation of Albright. That is, the part cylindrical cavity would necessarily eliminate a portion of the carriages 20 of Albright.
Regarding Claim 1, the Office Action does not present evidence that Dirkx teaches or even suggests wherein the one or more discs that are adjacently located form-fitting together and maintaining their mutual angular orientation by the projection being received by the recess thereby enabling modularity when there is a need for alternatingly using the medicine unit container for different medicine unit types.
There is no evidence in Dirkx of a structure maintaining any mutual angular orientation. The part cylindrical cavity 8' and the cylindrical portion 6' have cylindrical forms such that when they are engaged, can be freely rotated. Compare to Fig. 3 of the present application (e.g., polygonal profiles do not allow for relative rotation).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Dirkx is used to teach a structural connection of tray members being able to connect together through a recess and projection connection, specifically the recess portion where Wijngaarden does not show within the drawings, but is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of shaft needing to enter through.
Examiner notes that the claim should describe “There is no evidence in Dirkx of a structure maintaining any mutual angular orientation. The part cylindrical cavity 8' and the cylindrical portion 6' have cylindrical forms such that when they are engaged, can be freely rotated. Compare to Fig. 3 of the present application (e.g., polygonal profiles do not allow for relative rotation). “ In other words, the claim should describe that the connection does not allow for relative (Examiner interprets as different, unconnected, distinct and separate) movement between parts. Such is not taught by Dirkx, but such is not claimed within the current claim 1.
Applicant Argues:
Again, the Office Action refers to "increased stability for a stacking arrangement of levels/discs," to support the modification of Albright with Dirkx, but this reasoning is insufficient. This reasoning is merely fabricated, with no reference to where the prior art states or implies this structure functions to provide stability. Thus, the reasoning is conclusory. "'[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."'KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (S. Ct. 2007). Moreover, what mode of stability is referred to (rotational, axial, etc.)? Stable relative to what structure? What objective measure of stability? Again, Albright describes a tightly packed stack of elements contained within a container with no allowances for any type of movement other than the intended rotational movement. How does Dirkx lend any technical benefit to Albright? Wouldn't the above- described elimination of part of Albright's carriage 20 structure to provide for the part cylindrical cavity make the carriage 20 less stable?
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that the stability is increased for a rotational connection, allowing the structures to interfit together instead of being separate spaced structures. Dirk describes “tray interfits with the support member of an adjacent tray to provide relative rotation as well as cantilevered support” (col. 2 lines 49-53). Such would be an alternative connection means for allowing rotation while also allowing for additional support (connected together instead of separate and spaced or not connected).
Applicant Argues:Regarding Claim 30, the Office Action does not present evidence that Albright teaches or even suggests wherein each of one or more of the plurality of rotatable compartment housings comprise multiple of the one or more discs. The Office Action points to each separate carriage 20 of Albright (multiple, separate carriages). However, this is not what the claim requires. The claim requires that each rotatable compartment housing comprises multiple discs (e.g., discs stacked in the same level).
Regarding Claim 16, the Office Action does not present evidence that Albright teaches or even suggests wherein each of one or more of the plurality of rotatable compartment housings comprise multiple of the one or more discs.
Examiner’s Response:
If Applicant is describing an alternative embodiment, Examiner finds the language unclear, and not shown in the drawings which show multiple compartments stacked, separated by multiple storeys, and all located within a single housing. It is unclear as to what the Applicant is arguing.
Examiner notes that Albright discloses a plurality of rotatable compartment housings (20, 20’, 20” – multiple disc), similar to that as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1. Examiner finds it unclear as to what the Applicant is arguing. To the extent of further explanation, Examiner notes that each housing is delimited by an adjacent housing above or below, thus, more than one housing, forms the boundary of each compartment space/housing above and below.
Claim 30 provides no structure or explanation which would distinguish from such.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant Argues:
The Office Action states that the proposed modification would be obvious "to secure contents within a container." However, Albright already achieves this; the contents of Albright's device appear "secure" in Fig. 1. So, it is unclear why a skilled artisan would modify Albright with McLaughlin. Viewed differently, McLaughlin's device features open trays within which the carousel is located, so there is a specific use in McLaughlin for the outer ring 48, but this use is moot when applied to Albright, because the housing 10 already secures the contents of the device. In this regard, Albright already solves the technical problem of securing the contents, but in a different way (with a different overall physical configuration of the device).
Stated differently, the reasoning relied upon in the rejection addresses a problem, with McLaughlin, that Albright already solves. Thus, there is no motivation for a skilled artisan to modify Albright with McLaughlin.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that as Applicant described, McLaughlin teaches an alternative technique for securing contents within a container. Where Albright has a container with open walls, McLaughlin discloses a container with closed walls. Thus, the combination would allow for securing contents within closed walls as suggested by McLaughlin.
Applicant Argues:
Regarding Claim 15, the Office Action turns from one embodiment of Albright (see, e.g., Fig. 1) to another embodiment (see, e.g., Fig. 16). In other words, the proposed modification is of the Fig. 1 embodiment, relied on for earlier rejections, with the Fig. 16 embodiment, which is first relied upon here.
There is no motivation for a skilled artisan to make the proposed modification. Rather, the Fig. 1 and Fig. 16 embodiments appear mutually exclusive. That is, in Fig. 1, a shaft 25 is relied upon to connect the carriages 20. However, in Fig. 16, the shaft is disposed of, in place of pins 43, 44. So, Ex parte Claus
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive. The rejection of claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant Argues:
Regarding Claims 24 and 25, again, the Office Action provides no clear evidence of the claimed recess, which Claim 1 requires as maintaining their mutual angular orientation by the projection being received by the recess.
The Office Action rejects Claims 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, and 34 as being unpatentable over Albright in view of Wijngaarden, Dirkx, and McLaughlin, and further in view of Jonathon Myers (US 2006 0249528; hereinafter, 'Myers").
Regarding Claims 24 and 25, the Office Action earlier rejects these claims over Wijngaarden, but here concedes that Wijngaarden does not teach the limitations of these claims. Clarification is required.
Here, Myers describes a "wall mountable dispenser for use with consumer wipes," which in no reasonably conceivable way relates to the device presently claimed. It is for this reason that the "change in shape" rationale cannot be used in this context.
Similarly, Applicant contends that Myers is not analogous art, and that Myers exists in an art that is so disparate from the present application this is a clear case of impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Myers does not relate to a device that in any way relates to maintaining mutual angular orientation. The shape of the projections 24, are irrelevant to any angular orientation of the wall mountable dispenser A relative to the wall supports 16. Rather, the wall supports 16 being provided in duplicate to anchor both ends of the wall mountable dispenser A perform this function independent of the geometry of the projections 24. Citation to Myers is token in nature, and is a textbook case of hindsight reasoning.
Examiner’s Response:
Wijngaarden disclose a polygonal shape extending from a projection. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art, would recognize that polygonal extending through would be capable of having complimentary polygonal shapes at an entrance and at an exit of a hole, thus, it would be obvious that recess (entry point) would math the exit point (located at the projection). Furthermore, both Albright and Dirkx teach complimentary entry and exit points at a hole, thus, such would be a obvious engineering choice as both suggested by the combination as cited, and as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner notes that Myers follows the same reasoning, with the addition of showing a polygonal entry point. Myers is not used to teach a device; Myers is used to strictly show the obviousness of complimentary mounting shapes corresponding to one another so as to form a connection.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant Argues:
Projection Regarding Claim 33, there is no part of the rejection that addresses the specific verbiage of this claim, so a primafacie case of obviousness has not been established.
Examiner’s Response:Claim 33 includes the same language as claim 24. The said claims differ in dependencies. Examiner notes that the Wijngaarden is used to prior teach the limitations of claim 24, thus, also teaches the limitations of claim 33. Examiner further notes that repeating the rejection is not required since it has already been rejected and shown, and further, said limitations can be seen from the drawings, as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant Argues:
Regarding Claim 34, the Office Action changes the entire theory of the rejection. Whereas Albright was earlier alleged to have taught the container body and separating planes, now McLaughlin is cited as if it is the primary reference with respect to these elements. In this regard, the Office Action also omits consideration as to whether these structures of McLaughlin correspond to any of the other preceding limitations (e.g., as in Claim 1, the plurality of separating planes comprise "at least one passage of each of the plurality of separating planes being successively located at different angular positions about the central axis to prevent forming a continuous channel." Rather, McLaughlin seems to teach the opposite ("... the 15
discharge openings of the plurality of trays being vertically aligned to define the open discharge chute when said trays are installed into the cabinet").
In another aspect, since the overall structure and function of McLaughlin's components differs from Albright, the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Albright.
If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.
MPEP 2143.01(VI). For instance, Albright relies on a shaft for mutually rotating all carriages 20, whereas McLaughlin shows each carousel 40 being moved by individual drive motors 58. In this regard, there is no need to restrict movement of the tray floor 30 relative to the cabinet 12, because there is no risk of them moving. The tray floors 30 could have a dimension that permits them to rotate within the cabinet 12, but there would be no consequence of this, since there is no motive force influencing their movement.
Moreover, the Office Action impermissibly treats case law as a per se rule, and does not provide an explanation of the case law's application to the case at hand.
Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported .... However, such rationales should not be treated as per se rules, but rather must be explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand.
MPEP 2144 (emphasis added). Here, the Office Action cites the change in shape rationale (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Again, with the multiple vast differences of Albright and McLaughlin discussed above, Applicant believes that the proposed modification could only have been derived from impermissible hindsight reasoning.
It is impermissible, however, simply to engage in a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention, using the applicant's structure as a template and selecting elements from the references to fill the gaps.
Examiner’s Response:
McLaughlin is not cited as if the primary reference, for McLaughan is obvious as Albright in view of Wijngaarden and Dirkx, with that of McLaughlin.
Examiner notes that McLaughlin is used to teach a polygonal (square/rectangular) housing, with internal polygonal (square/rectangular) separating planes. An alternative engineering choice, which would still allow for rotary disc within.
In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
McLaughlin is not used to teach the specifics of how the disc rotates.
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) 1, 6, 30, and 31 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marie O. Albright (4,809,877 – hereinafter Albright) in view of Wijngaarden et al. (US 2018/0177683 – hereinafter Wijngaarden) and Chielbertus Johannes Simon Dirkx (3,498,471 – hereinafter Dirkx).
Re Claims 1 and 30:
Albright discloses a medicine unit container for use in a medicine unit delivery device comprising: a container body (10) defined by a central axis (at 8, at 25) and comprising: a plurality of separating planes (15, 15’, 15”) dividing the container body (10) into a plurality of storeys (sections - at 15, 15’, 15”), each of the plurality of separating planes (15, 15’, 15”) comprising: at least one passage (12, 12’, 12”) between the plurality of storeys (sections - at 15, 15’, 15”) that are adjacently located (see Figs. 5-7), the at least one passage (12, 12’, 12”) of each of the plurality of separating planes (15, 15’, 15”) being successively located at different angular positions about the central axis (at 8, at 25) to prevent forming a continuous channel (see Figs. 1-4); a plurality of rotatable compartment housings (20, 20’, 20”) respectively located within the plurality of storeys (sections - at 15, 15’, 15”) and rotatable about the central axis (at 8, at 25) extending through centers of the plurality of rotatable compartment housings (20, 20’, 20”), each of the plurality of rotatable compartment housings (20, 20’, 20”) comprising: one or more discs (shapes of compartment housings 20, 20’, 20”) defining a plurality of compartments (a, a’, a”) covering at least one position equidistant in a radial direction from the centers, the plurality of compartments (a, a’, a”) each being defined by a compartment size, a first dimension of the compartment size being configurable by stacking multiple of the one or more discs (shapes of compartment housings 20, 20’, 20”) and the one or more discs (shapes of compartment housings 20, 20’, 20”) comprising a central hole (see central hole which shaft extends through at 8, at 25); and a central shaft (25) extending through the central holes of each and every of the one or more discs (shapes of compartment housings 20, 20’, 20”) and to which each and every of the plurality of rotatable compartment housings (20, 20’, 20”) are connected so as to be rotatable together; wherein the plurality of rotatable compartment housings (20, 20’, 20”) are a fixed part or formed from parts of the rotatable compartment housings (20, 20’, 20”); the at least one passage (12, 12’, 12”) of each of the plurality of separating planes (15, 15’, 15”) cover a position in the radial direction respectively corresponding to the at least one position of each of the plurality of compartments (a, a’, a”) so that there is a rotation angle of each of the plurality of rotatable compartment housings (20, 20’, 20”) in which the plurality of compartments (a, a’, a”) is aligned with the at least one passage (12, 12’, 12”); wherein the at least one passage (12, 12’, 12”) of each of the plurality of separating planes (15, 15’, 15”) are successively shifted by a second dimension of the compartment size (see Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the one or more discs each comprise a projection extending from a first side thereof and a recess extending from a second side thereof, the projection and the recess being arranged around the central hole; and wherein the one or more discs that are adjacently located form-fitting together and maintaining their mutual angular orientation by the projection being received by the recess thereby enabling modularity when there is a need for alternatingly using the medicine unit container for different medicine unit types.
Wijngaarden teaches wherein one or more discs (35) each comprise a projection (35d) extending from a first side thereof and a recess (opposite side of projection which allows shaft to enter disc) extending from a second side thereof, the projection (35d) and the recess (opposite side of projection which allows shaft to enter disc) being arranged around a central hole (at 35d). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Albright with that of Wijngaarden to assure proper parts are used, and to assure a secure connection between parts so that a rotating device is stable. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Albright with that of Wijngaarden to allow for stacking arrangements of levels, thus providing additional support as known within the art.
Dirkx teaches wherein one or more (levels) that are adjacently located form-fitting together and maintaining their mutual angular orientation (see Fig. 1) by a projection (5’, 6’) being received by a recess (8, 8’) thereby enabling modularity when there is a need for alternatingly using the (levels) for different (products). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Albright with that of Wijngaarden and Dirkx to allow for stacking arrangements of levels/discs, thus providing additional support as known within the art. The combination would be capable of having the disc connect to one another; Wijngaarden appears to show a structure which is capable of such but does not specifically say that the disc connects to another disc. The teachings of Dirkx suggest that one level may be attached to another level around an axis rod for modularity purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the combination as obvious so as to provide increased stability for a stacking arrangement of levels/discs. Additionally, (see col. 1 lines 9-32, see Abstract of Albright, - Examiner notes the device is for loading and unloading discs, thus, the device is capable of removing an old disc of medicine types, and placing a new disc or medicine types. Examiner further notes that Albright is concerned with providing multiple types of medication, therefore, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim,
Further Re Claim 6:
Albright discloses wherein the one or more discs (shapes of compartment housings 20, 20’, 20”, 40, 40”) comprises radially extending baffles (see protruding structures between each compartment space which separates the compartments) having a first end centrally oriented (closer to the center) and second end distally oriented (further from the center than the first end) , wherein adjacent pairs of the radially extending baffles (see protruding structures between each compartment space which separates the compartments) are at the same angle (see Figs. 1-15).
Further Re Claim 31:
Albright discloses wherein the one or more discs (shapes of compartment housings 20, 20’, 20”, 40, 40”) comprises an annular projection (47, 47’) , coaxial with a circumference of the one or more discs, the annular projection (47, 47’) being received by the plurality of separating planes (15, 15’, 15”, 36, 36’) for centering thereto (see Fig. 15).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright in view of Wijngaarden and Dirkx and further in view of McLaughlin et al. (4,811,764 – hereinafter McLaughlin).
Re Claim 23:
Albright in view of Wijngaarden and Dirkx discloses the device of claim 6, but fails to teach wherein a second end of radially extending baffles meet with a ring defining a circumference of the one or more discs
McLaughlin teaches wherein a second end of radially extending baffles (50) meet with a ring (at 40) defining a circumference of the one or more discs (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Albright in view of Wijngaarden and Dirkx with that of McLaughlin to secure contents within a container.
Claim(s) 32, 33, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright in view of Wijngaarden, Dirkx , and McLaughlin and further in view of Jonathon Myers (US 2006/0249528 – hereinafter Myers).
Further Re Claims 32 and 33
Wijngaarden teaches wherein a central shaft (33) comprises a projection that form-fits with a recess of at least one of the one or more discs (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Albright with that of Wijngaarden to assure proper parts are used, and to assure a secure connection between parts so that a rotating device is stable.
Myers further in view teaches wherein a projection (24) and a recess (22) have a complementary polygonal (hexagonal) profile for maintaining said mutual angular orientation. (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Albright with that of Wijngaarden, Dirkx , McLaughlin, and Myers to provide a change in shape for two parts connecting together to stabilize the parts as known within the art. Examiner notes that Wijngaarden shows such as well and that Myers provides an additional example of a connection of polygonal shapes.
Further Re Claim 34:
McLaughlin teaches wherein a container body (12) and a plurality of separating planes (30) have complementary polygonal profiles thereby preventing relative rotational movement therebetween (see Fig. 2) (Examiner further notes that a change in shape is an obvious skill to one of ordinary skill in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Albright in view of Wijngaarden and Dirkx with that of McLaughlin to secure contents within a container by way of a design choice as known within the art that would restrict movement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 15, 16, 18, 19-21, 24-26, 28, and 29 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.
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 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