DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that In regard to the alleged combination of Morad and Iwaki, the Applicant respectfully disagrees with this alleged combination and that Iwaki cures the deficiencies of Morad. Iwaki is directed to retracting devices for sliding drawers, wherein rotary dampers are employed solely to absorb kinetic energy and prevent slamming at the end of travel. Iwaki’s damper merely dissipates energy at a terminal position and is not part of a dispensing cycle and does not cooperate with a biasing spring to define a minimum reset interval or delay time for dispensing. Thus, one skilled in the art would not have looked to art directed to retracting devices for sliding drawers, absent impermissibly hindsight to the Applicant’s specification. As the courts have noted, “the suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability.” Jn re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Further, there is no disclosure or suggestion in Iwaki that a rotary damper could be used to determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser, as provided in claim 9, “wherein a spring constant of the compression spring and a dampening torque of the rotary damper determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser’. Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that even if Morad and Iwaki are properly combinable, which the Applicant does not concede, Morad and Iwaki still fail to disclose all the aspects of claim 9.
As noted above, the teachings of Morad and Iwaki, as applied, fail to disclose all the claimed elements, as detailed in the foregoing and do not render the Applicant's claimed combinations obvious, as suggested by the Office Action. Further, the Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the systems of Morad and Iwaki to arrive at the Applicant's claimed combinations absent impermissible hindsight reference to the Applicant's specification, as discussed above.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The Iwaki reference was merely utilized to teach the following:
Iwaki discloses at least one rotary damper (25) connected to the pinion (pinion of rotary damper main body; para.0066) and arranged resist rotation of the pinion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morad with at least one rotary damper connected to the pinion and arranged resist rotation of the pinion from the dispensing position to the initial position as the push compression spring urges the pushbutton and the push rod to the undepressed position because it enables a resistance mechanism that can substantially reduce the speed of the product dispenser, which is a very well-known reason for the use of rotary dampers connected to pinions and compression springs.
Iwaki prior art was employed to illustrate the use of rotary dampers connected to a pinion is an elementary mechanism and is not a novel limitation. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would indeed combine the Morad and Iwaki to arrive at the combination stated in the office action. The use of rotary dampers to resist the motion of a pinion is widely utilized in devices that use rotary dampers.
Moreover, the Brej reference has been added to the independent claim rejections to teach the newly added limitations of claims 9 and 16:
Brej discloses wherein a spring constant of the spring (284) and a torque of the rotary damper (30) determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser (para.0052; time delay actuator mechanisms inherently function in this manner). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Morad with wherein a spring constant of the compression spring and a torque of the rotary damper determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser because it’s a notoriously well-known time delay actuator mechanism used in the product-dispensing device art and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation.
The Applicant’s amendments pertain to limitations that are very well-known in the product dispensing, rotary dampening, time delay device art and thus the limitations are not in condition for allowance.
Applicant argues that For example, dependent claim 15 recites, “wherein the torque of the at least one rotary damper is selected as a function of the spring constant of the compression spring.” The Examiner’s assertion that Iwaki inherently discloses this aspect, because a damper torque is “a function of” a spring constant is technically incorrect. The spring in paragraph [0066] of Iwaki merely biases a slide for a drawer. The damper is a self-contained resistive unit and damper torque is not disclosed as being selected or tuned based on the spring constant. There is no disclosure in Iwaki of selecting damper torque as a function of a spring constant or using the combination to define a delay timing for dispensing.
In response, claims 15 and 17 have been objected to in the office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 9-14,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morad et al. (US 10,192,386) in view of Iwaki (US 2013/0219657) in view of Brej (US 2017/0265653).
Claim 9, Morad discloses a mechanical time delay product dispenser, comprising
a cabinet (fig.1) having a front panel (12), a rear panel (figures), and a side panel (16) between the front panel and the rear panel, and at least one release tray (20) in the front panel (12),
a product magazine (600,700) for holding a product to be dispensed,
at least one pushbutton (24,124) in the front panel (12), the at least one pushbutton being connected to a push rod (104) having teeth (114), the pushbutton (24) and the push rod (104) being movable between an undepressed position and a depressed position,
a pinion (204) with teeth (214) that engage the teeth (114) of the push rod (104), the pinion being rotatable between an initial position and a dispensing position, the pinion being in the initial position when the pushbutton (24) and the push rod (104) are in the undepressed position and being in the dispensing position when the pushbutton and the push rod are in the depressed position,
a push compression spring (94) between the push rod (104) and a front panel (12) of the time delay product dispenser, the push compression spring (94) being arranged to urge the pushbutton (24) and the push rod (104) to the undepressed position (fig.6),
a product pusher (208,210) arranged to push a product from the product magazine (600) to the release tray (20) in a direction of the pushbutton (24) and the push rod (104) between the undepressed position and the depressed position upon rotation of the pinion (204) from the initial position to the dispensing position.
Although Morad does not disclose where a push compression spring (94) is located between the push rod (104) and a back panel of the time delay product dispenser and a product pusher (208,210) arranged to push a product from the product magazine (600) to the release tray (20) in a direction different from a direction of the pushbutton (24) and the push rod (104), at least one release tray (20) in
the side panel (16); it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Morad does not disclose at least one rotary damper connected to the pinion (204) and arranged resist rotation of the pinion from the dispensing position to the initial position as the push compression spring (94) urges the pushbutton (24) and the push rod to the undepressed position; wherein a spring constant of the compression spring and a torque of the rotary damper determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser.
Iwaki discloses at least one rotary damper (25) connected to the pinion (pinion of rotary damper main body; para.0066) and arranged resist rotation of the pinion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morad with at least one rotary damper connected to the pinion and arranged resist rotation of the pinion from the dispensing position to the initial position as the push compression spring urges the pushbutton and the push rod to the undepressed position because it enables a resistance mechanism that can substantially reduce the speed of the product dispenser, which is a very well-known reason for the use of rotary dampers connected to pinions and compression springs.
Brej discloses wherein a spring constant of the spring (284) and a torque of the rotary damper (30) determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser (para.0052; time delay actuator mechanisms inherently function in this manner). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Morad with wherein a spring constant of the compression spring and a torque of the rotary damper determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser because it’s a notoriously well-known time delay actuator mechanism used in the product-dispensing device art and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation.
Claim 10, Morad does not disclose wherein the rotary damper is arranged on a same axis as the pinion.
Iwaki discloses the rotary damper (25) is arranged on a same axis as the pinion (pinion of rotary damper main body; para.0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morad with wherein the rotary damper is arranged on a same axis as the pinion because it enables a resistance mechanism that can substantially reduce the speed of the product dispenser, which is a very well-known reason for the use of rotary dampers connected to pinions and compression springs.
Claim 11, Morad discloses wherein the at least one pushbutton comprises a left pushbutton (24) and a right pushbutton (124).
Claim 12, Morad does not disclose wherein the rotary damper is connected to the pinion by a coupling.
Iwaki discloses wherein the rotary damper (25) is connected to the pinion (pinion of rotary damper main body; para.0066) by a coupling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morad with wherein the rotary damper is connected to the pinion by a coupling simply to have a resistance mechanism that can substantially reduce the speed of the product dispenser, which is a very well-known reason for the use of rotary dampers in product dispensers.
Claim 13, Morad discloses wherein the at least one pushbutton comprises a left pushbutton (24) and a right pushbutton (124).
Claim 14, Morad discloses wherein the at least one pushbutton comprises a left pushbutton (24) and a right pushbutton (124).
Claim 16, Morad discloses a method of making a mechanical time delay product dispenser, comprising providing a cabinet (fig.1) having a front panel (12), a rear panel (figures), and a side panel (16) between the front panel and the rear panel, providing a product magazine (600,700) for holding a product to be dispensed, providing at least one pushbutton (24,124) in the front panel, the at least one pushbutton being connected to a push rod (104) having teeth (114), the pushbutton and the push rod being movable between an undepressed position and a depressed position, providing a pinion (204) with teeth (214) that engage the teeth of the push rod, the pinion being rotatable between an initial position and a dispensing position, the pinion being in the initial position when the pushbutton and the push rod are in the undepressed position and being in the dispensing position when the pushbutton and the push rod are in the depressed position, providing a push compression spring (94) between the push rod and a front panel (12) of the time delay product dispenser, the push compression spring being arranged to urge the pushbutton and the push rod to the undepressed position, providing a product pusher (208,210) arranged to push a product from the product magazine (600) to the release tray (20) in a direction of the pushbutton and the push rod (104) between the undepressed position and the depressed position upon rotation of the pinion from the initial position to the dispensing position.
Although Morad does not disclose at least one release tray (20) in the side panel (16), providing a push compression spring (94) between the push rod (104) and a back panel (see figures) of the time delay product dispenser; providing a product pusher (208,210) arranged to push a product from the product magazine (600) to the release tray (20) in a direction different from a direction of the pushbutton (24) and the push rod (104), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration since it has been held that
rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Morad does not disclose providing at least one rotary damper connected to the pinion and arranged resist rotation of the pinion from the dispensing position to the initial position as the push compression spring urges the pushbutton and the push rod to the undepressed position; wherein a spring constant of the compression spring and a dampening torque of the rotary damper determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser.
Iwaki discloses providing at least one rotary damper (25) connected to the pinion and arranged resist rotation of the pinion (pinion of rotary damper main body; para.0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morad with providing at least one rotary damper connected to the pinion and arranged resist rotation of the pinion from the dispensing position to the initial position as the push compression spring urges the pushbutton and the push rod to the undepressed position because it enables a resistance mechanism that can substantially reduce the speed of the product dispenser, which is a very well-known reason for the use of rotary dampers connected to pinions and compression springs.
Brej discloses wherein a spring constant of the spring (284) and a dampening torque of the rotary damper (30) determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser (para.0052; time delay actuator mechanisms inherently function in this manner). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Morad with wherein a spring constant of the compression spring and a dampening torque of the rotary damper determine a time delay of the time delay product dispenser because it’s a notoriously well-known time delay actuator mechanism used in the product-dispensing device art and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15,17 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI T OJOFEITIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-6557. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/AYODEJI T OJOFEITIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651