DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
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) 1-3, 5, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John Gelardi (WO 2008/061026 A2 – hereinafter Gelardi) in view of Fry et al. (US 2005/0082194 A1 – hereinafter Fry).
Re Claims 1-3 and 19:
Gelardi discloses a dispensing cup (10) comprising a: a cup body (20), wherein the cup body (20) comprises an open cup (at 20) and a cup lid (26) (see Fig. 5), b: an opening (116) for dispensing one or more tablets to a patient, c: a tablet container (14), and d: a cover (22),wherein the cup lid (26) is configured to receive the tablet container (14) (see page 12 line 28 to page 13 line 11), wherein the cup body (20) is configured to collect the one or more tablets from the tablet container (14) prior to dispensing to the patient whereby removal of the one or more tablets from the tablet container (14) does not require the patient to come into direct contact with the one or more tablets while dispensing (see page 13 line 28 to page 14 line 4), wherein a child resistant securing means is present to prevent easy access to the tablets, wherein the child resistant securing means comprises one or more tabs (28a, 28b, 30a, 30b) and one or more slits (32a, 32b, 36a, 36b) on opposing parts of the dispensing cup (10), wherein the opposing parts are the cup body (20) or the open cup (at 20) and the cover (22), wherein the one or more tabs (28a, 28b, 30a, 30b) engage with the one or more slits (32a, 32b, 36a, 36b) on the corresponding opposing part of the dispensing cup (10) (see Figs. 4-7), wherein the open cup (at 20) comprises a first end (near 26 – see Fig. 6) and a second end (near 24 – see Fig. 6), wherein the cup lid (26) is pivotably connected to the first end (near 26 – see Fig. 6) (see Fig. 5) of the open cup (at 20), and wherein the cover (22) is pivotably connected to the second end (near 24 – see Fig. 6) (see Fig. 5) of the open cup (at 20), wherein the cup lid (26) has a length that is at least a length of the open cup (at 20), and wherein the cover (22) has a length that is at least the length of the open cup (at 20) (see Figs. 4-7) (Examiner notes that having a length of something can be broadly interpreted in view of one of ordinary skill in the art as any given length selected, for the claim does not specifically state what length or describe the extent of the length, however, in view of a length being (substantially or generally the entire length), Gelardi fails to teach wherein the cup lid has a length that is at least a length of the open cup.
Fry teaches wherein a cup lid (14) has a length that is at least a length of an open cup (10) (see Figs. 1-4). 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 Gelardi with that of Fry to allow for greater contact space for a blister type cover, and to provide a change in shape or size as seen fit, a general engineering skill known within the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Further Re Claim 5:
Gelardi discloses wherein the cup lid (26) when closed is partly covering the open cup (at 20) leaving the opening (116) for dispensing one or more tablets (see Figs. 5-6).
Further Re Claim 20:
Gelardi discloses wherein the cup lid (26) defines two or fewer apertures (aperture between 26 and 27a – see Fig. 5), wherein each of the two or fewer apertures is configured to receive a portion of the tablet container (14) (see Figs. 4-7).
3. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelardi in view of Fry and further in view Michael Patrick Donegan (US 2002/0185404 A1 – hereinafter Donegan)
Re Claim 9:
Gelardi in view of Fry discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the child resistant securing means comprises an additional tab on one opposing part or the dispensing cup, which tab engages a rim on the opposing part of the dispensing cup.
Donegan further in view teaches wherein a child resistant securing means comprises an additional tab (42) on one opposing part or the dispensing cup, which tab (42) engages a rim (20, 24) on the opposing part of the dispensing cup (see Figs. 1-5). 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 Gelardi in view of Fry with that of Donegan to inhibit access to articles, so as to avoid unintended usage, by way of increasing the complexity of opening a device.
4. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelardi in view of Fry and further in view Scott William Huffer (US 2017/0240331 – hereinafter Huffer).
Re Claim 10:
Gelardi in view of Fry discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the opening is covered with a removable film.
Huffer further in view teaches wherein an opening (14) is covered with a removable film (20, 35) (see Figs. 1-8B). 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 Gelardi in view of Fry with that of Huffer to protect the inner parts of a container, from debris, prior to usage.
5. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelardi in view of Fry and further in view of Hawes et al. (US 2008/0105587 A1 – hereinafter Hawes).
Re Claims 15:
Gelardi in view of Fry discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein one or more of the cup body, the tablet container, the cup lid and the cover are of a biodegradable material.
Hawes further in view teaches wherein one or more of a cup body, a tablet container (600), a cup lid and a cover are of a biodegradable material (see paragraph [0029]). 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 Gelardi in view of Fry with that of Hawes, to provide a dispenser which is environmentally friendly and does not contribute to landfill problems.
6. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelardi in view of Fry and further in view of Caroline Blochet (US 2014/0288942 A1 – hereinafter Blochet).
Re Claims 16:
Gelardi in view of Fry discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach a connectivity means.
Blochet further in view teaches a connectivity means (see paragraphs [0021, 0024, 0025, 0029, and 0056]). 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 Gelardi in view of Fry with that of Blochet to remotely know the status of a device and for identification purposes.
7. Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelardi in view of Fry and further in view of Wagner et al. (US 8,459,458 – hereinafter Wagner).
Re Claims 17 and 18:
Gelardi in view of Fry disclose the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the tablet comprises an active pharmaceutical ingredient which is potentially harmful to the patient when contacted directly by human skin.
Wagner further in view teaches wherein the tablet comprises an active pharmaceutical ingredient (cladribine) which is potentially harmful to the patient when contacted directly by human skin (see col. 10 line 40). 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 Gelardi in view of Fry with that of Wagner to provide a selection of material for a product to be used as known within the art.
8. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelardi in view of Fry and further in view of Beecroft et al. (US 2010/0264054 A1 – hereinafter Beecroft).
Re Claim 21:
Gelardi in view of Fry disclose the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein an underside of the cup lid includes one or more protrusions configured to connect to the tablet container.
Beecroft further in view teaches wherein an underside of a cup lid (24) includes one or more protrusions (95, 96, 31, 32) configured to connect to a tablet container (see Figs. 5-6, see Figs. 1-18). 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 Gelardi in view of Fry with that of Beecroft to block removal of a blister card from a dispenser. Examiner further notes that the reversal of components in a prior art reference, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 23 and 25-28 are allowed.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
12. 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