DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 22 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The device of claim 22 is directed towards a dispenser with a sliding cover which has no dispensing function other than the removal of the cover which is a common practice within the art. The device of claim 22 was not claimed in the original examined claims. The device of claim 22 differs from the other devices because they are concerned with alignment and dispensing through cover or cover-type members, and not a cover for an entire device. The distinct inventions do not have unity for the common features are standard within the dispensing arts and the uncommon features (cover for a whole device, and alignment for dispensing) are not the same or obvious variants of another.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim22 is withdrawn/rejected from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz et al. (US 2003/0042167 A1 – hereinafter Balz) in view of in view of John A Gelardi (WO 2008/061026 A2 – hereinafter Gelardi).
Re Claims 1-3, and 19:
Balz discloses a dispensing cup (10) comprising a. a cup body (10); wherein the cup body (10) comprises an open cup (44) and a cup lid (11), b. an opening (21) for dispensing one or more tablets to a patient, and c. a tablet container (blister container - 25), wherein the cup lid (11) is configured to receive the tablet container (25), wherein the cup body (10) is configured to collect the one or more tablets from the tablet container (25) prior to dispensing to the patient whereby removal of the one or more tablets from the tablet container (25) does not require the patient to come into direct contact with the one or more tablets while dispensing (see Figs. 1-5), wherein a child resistant securing means (15a-b, 16a-b, 43a-b, 44a-b and bolts) is present to prevent easy access to the tablets (see Fig. 1), wherein the open cup (44) comprises a first end (at 44a) and a second end (at 44b), wherein the cup lid (11) is pivotally connected to the first end (at 44a) of the open cup (44) (see Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the child resistant securing means comprises one or more tabs and one or more slits on opposing parts of the dispensing cup, wherein the opposing parts are the cup body or the open cup and the cover and wherein the one or more tabs engage with the one or more slits on the corresponding opposing part of the dispensing cup, and d. a cover (7), and wherein the cover (7) is pivotally connected to the second end of the open cup (5).
Gelardi teaches d. a cover (22), wherein an open cup (20) comprises a first end (at H3) and a second end (at H1), wherein a cup lid (26) is pivotally connected to the first end (at H3) of the open cup (20) (see Figs. 1 and 5), wherein a child resistant securing means comprises one or more tabs (30a, 30b) and one or more slits (36a, 36b) on opposing parts of a dispensing cup (10), wherein the opposing parts are the cup body (at 26) or the open cup and the cover (22), and wherein the one or more tabs (30a, 30b) engage with the one or more slits (36a, 36b) on the corresponding opposing part of the dispensing cup (10) (see Figs. 4 and 7), and wherein the cover (22) is pivotally connected to the second end (H1) of the open cup (20). 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 Balz with that of Gelardi to inhibit access to articles, so as to avoid unintended usage.
Further Re Claim 5:Balz discloses wherein the cup lid (11) when closed is partly covering the open cup (40) leaving the opening (21) for dispensing one or more tablets (see Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz in view of Gelardi and further in view Michael Patrick Donegan (US 2002/0185404 A1 – hereinafter Donegan)
Re Claim 9:
Balz in view of Gelardi 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 Balz in view of Gelardi 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz in view of Gelardi and further in view Scott William Huffer (US 2017/0240331 – hereinafter Huffer).
Re Claim 10:
Balz in view of Gelardi 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 Balz in view of Gelardi with that of Huffer to protect the inner parts of a container, from debris, prior to usage.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz in view of Gelardi and further in view of Hawes et al. (US 2008/0105587 A1 – hereinafter Hawes).
Re Claims 15:
Balz in view of Gelardi 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 Balz in view of Gelardi with that of Hawes, to provide a dispenser which is environmentally friendly and does not contribute to landfill problems.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz in view of Gelardi and further in view of Caroline Blochet (US 2014/0288942 A1 – hereinafter Blochet).
Re Claims 16:
Balz in view of Gelardi 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 Balz in view of Gelardi with that of Blochet to remotely know the status of a device and for identification purposes.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz in view of Gelardiand further in view of Wagner et al. (US 8,459,458 – hereinafter Wagner).
Re Claims 17 and 18:
Balz in view of Gelardi 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 Balz in view of Gelardi with that of Wagner to provide a selection of material for a product to be used as known within the art.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz in view of Gelardi and further in view of Glenn A. Grosskopf (US 2013/0220870 A1 – hereinafter Grosskopf).
Re Claim 20:
Balz in view of Gelardi disclose the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the cup lid defines two or fewer apertures, wherein each of the two or fewer apertures is configured to receive a portion of the tablet container.
Grosskopf further in view teaches wherein the cup lid defines two or fewer apertures, wherein each of the two or fewer apertures is configured to receive a portion of the tablet container (see paragraphs [0057-0061 and 0069-0073]). 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 Balz in view of Gelardi with that of Grosskopf to provide a dispenser for a blister of any of a given number type as known within the art, for the change in number would not change the primary purpose of the invention.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz in view of Gelardiand further in view of Beecroft et al. (US 2010/0264054 A1 – hereinafter Beecroft).
Re Claim 21:
Balz in view of Gelardi 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 Balz in view of Gelardi 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).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsis (US 2009/0152134 A1 – hereinafter Katsis) in view of Donegan
Re Claim 22:
Katsis discloses a dispensing cup (at 14) comprising a. a cup body (14), comprising one or more tabs (38, 44),b. an opening (40) for dispensing one or more tablets to a patient, and . a sliding sleeve (12) configured to cover the cup body (14), wherein the sliding sleeve (12) defines one or more openings (20, 22) configured to engage with the one or more tabs (38, 44) of the cup body (14),wherein, to secure the sliding sleeve (12) to the cup body (14), the one or more tabs (38, 44) of the cup body (14) engage with the one or more openings (20, 22) of the sliding sleeve (12), and wherein, to release the sliding sleeve (12) from the cup body (14), each of the one or more tabs (38, 44) is manipulated (see Figs. 1-4), but fails to teach c. a tablet container (4).
Donegan teaches c. a tablet container (26) (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 Katsis with that of Donegan allow for carrying a particular product for dispensing purposes as known within the art.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barndt et al. (US 2009/0283439 A1 – hereinafter Barndt) in view of Balz.
Re Claims 23 and 24:
Barndt discloses a dispensing cup (at 10) comprising a cup body (10) including an open cup (inner cavity with openings to the outside) and a cup lid (34), the cup lid (34) defining one or more apertures (66), b. an opening (60) for dispensing one or more tablets (12) to a patient, c. a tablet container (14) configured to be received at least in part through the one or more apertures (66) of the cup lid (34), and d. a sliding sleeve (32) defining one or more openings (48), wherein the sliding sleeve (32) is disposed between the open cup (inner cavity with openings to the outside) and the cup lid (34),wherein, in an open position, the one or more apertures (66) of the cup lid (34) are aligned with the one or more openings (48) of the sliding sleeve (14), and wherein, in a closed position, the one or more apertures (66) of the cup lid (34) are misaligned with the one or more openings (48) of the sliding sleeve (14) (see Figs. 1-10), but where if fails to specifically teach a cup body including an open cup and a cup lid.
Balz teaches a cup body (10) including an open cup (44) and a cup lid (11) (see Fig. 1). 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 Barndt with that of Balz, to make parts separable for refilling purposes and/or to gain access to an interior. Examiner notes that making parts separable is an obvious skill within the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Further Re Claim 25:
Barndt discloses wherein the sliding sleeve (32) further includes an opening (48, one of the plurality of alternative openings from another initial opening) configured to align with the opening (60) of the dispensing cup when in an open position (see Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barndt in view of Balz and further in view of Doucet et al. (US 8,746,454 B2 – hereinafter Doucet).
Re Claims 26 and 27:
Barndt in view of Balz disclose the device of claim 23, but fails to teach wherein the sliding sleeve further includes a securing means configured to engage with the cup lid when in a closed position.
Doucet further in view teaches sliding further includes a securing means (20) configured to engage with a cup lid (top surface) when in a closed position (see Fig 7, Fig. 8 when open). 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 Barndt in view of Balz with that of Doucet to allow for a projection type (button), member to be grasped and moved/pushed to align a device as known within the art, while also assisting in limiting the total distance of movement of the device.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barndt in view of Balz and Doucet and further in view of Katsis.
Re Claims 28:
Barndt in view of Balz disclose the device of claim 26, but fails to teach wherein the securing means is configured to disengage with the cup lid when the securing means is depressed.
Katsis further in view teaches wherein a securing means (40) is configured to disengage with a (housing) when the securing means (40) is depressed (see Fig. 1, 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 Barndt in view of Balz and Doucet with that of Katsis to allow for a projection type (button), to be pushed for slidable movement as known within the art.
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