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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 8-11, 13-14, 19, 22-25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first segment" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that there is some segment that is a first segment.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the floor" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that there is some floor.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the axially spaced interrupted gears" and “the respective idler gear teeth” and “the respective tray teeth” and “the idler” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there are some gears and teeth of that type. Claim 8 recites “if present” and it renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the limitation preceding the phrase is necessarily part of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there it is present or not present.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the axially spaced interrupted gears" and “the teeth” and “the idler gears’ and “the teeth or semi-circular grooves” and “the idler gears’ and “the idler” and “the ring or plate” the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there are some gears or teeth of that type.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each set of teeth on the tray drive shaft" and “the teeth of each interrupted gears engages the teeth of the respective idler gears or trays” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there are sets of teeth on the tray drive shaft and gears of that type.
Claim 11 recites exemplary language, specifically the phrase “i.e.”, which renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether the limitation that follows the phrase is necessarily part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the claim includes or does not include the limitation following the phrase.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the driveshaft or idler gear teeth", “the degree of initial rotation”, “the final degree of rotation” and “the cutout” in paragraph 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the claim has these features.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the offset opening" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted there is some offset opening.
Claim 13 further recites “the baseplate” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted there is some baseplate.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the tray cap" in line 2 of the claim, “the center opening in the top cap” in line 3 of the claim, “the offset opening” in line 5 of the claim, “the first or second segments of the tray” in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the claimed device has these limitations.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 3 of the claim and “the motion sensor” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there is some processor and motions sensor.
Claims 22 and 23 recite the limitation "the processor" in lines 6 and 3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there is some processor.
Claim 23 recites the limitations "the baseplate" and “the offset opening” in lines 2 and 3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that there is some baseplate and some offset opening.
Claim 24 recites the limitations "the offset opening" and “the second fan”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there is some opening and some fan.
Claim 25 recites the limitations "the offset opening" and “the second fan”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there is some opening and some fan.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12, 14, 15-16, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westring (US 2004/0009103) in view of Jin (US 2018/0071425).
Regarding claim 1, Westring (US 2004/0009103) discloses –
A fragrance dispenser (title, abstract), comprising:
a housing extending from a bottom of the dispenser to a top of the dispenser (Figs. 1-8, device 20 comprises housing 116, par. 61), defining an air inlet at the bottom (fig. 2 shows an inlet on the bottom of recessed area 130 and fan 134 for forcing air through the device, necessitating or making obvious some air inlet in the base 118 for airflow) and including a cartridge basket at the top (recessed area 130 in body portion 120);
a cartridge removably disposed within the cartridge basket (cartridge 22 in fig. 3, par. 57 and 61), the cartridge including a cartridge housing extending from a bottom to a top and defining an air inlet at the bottom and an outlet at the top (body of cartridge 22, fig. 3 having bottom opening 96 and open region 52 at the bottom and top, respectively),
the cartridge including a tray (tray 46, fig. 8),
the circular tray
a tray drive shaft, within the cartridge, configured to sequentially rotate the tray about a tray stack center (spindle hub 60 is a shaft for rotation that extends into the cartridge through center opening 94, fig. 2 and pars. 39 and 62);
a drive unit, operationally coupled to the tray drive shaft (drive motor 124, par. 70); and
an air intake unit (motor 126 to drive fan 156, par. 2; par. 83) configured to
draw air into the air inlet of the dispenser, into the air inlet of the cartridge, through the cartridge, and out of the air outlet of the cartridge (par. 83 discloses the forcing of air through the body of the device including the cartridge).
Westring appears to be silent with regards to the tray including a stack of trays.
Jin (US 2018/0071425) discloses a scent generation apparatus (title, Figs. 3a-3E) including a stack of rotatable trays that are configured the same as one another for scent emission through the actuation of said trays (particularly, fig 3d stacked configuration 314, par. 77) where the intake of air is on one side (pressurization 302) and the outlet of scent is on an opposite side (single delivery channel 312). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that the tray 46 includes a stack of rotatable trays as disclosed in Fig. 3d and such that the air is inhaled on one side of the device that is opposite the outlet as taught by Lin to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to allow for denser packing of scent containers without increasing a size of the device, according to par. 77 of Lin.
Regarding claim 2, modified Westring further teaches
the air inlet in the cartridge housing includes a center opening and an annular-or ring-section shaped opening radially offset and spaced apart from the center opening with a first circumferential span (fig. 8 shows two openings 94 and 96, 96 being radially offset and apart from the center opening 94); and
each of the trays includes a center opening and an annular-or ring-section shaped first segment with first airflow passages (the tray 46 includes a center hole proximate 48 and other segments at 56), the first segment forming at least one bin, the bin having a second circumferential span (the pockets 44 have a circumference that defines each individual bin of compositions 42; par. 36).
Regarding claim 3, modified Westring further teaches the tray drive shaft, is configured to sequentially rotate each of the trays about the tray stack center by the circumferential span of one bin such that, in an initial rotational state and a final rotational state, the bins of each of the trays are circumferentially aligned with each other and with the offset opening of the cartridge housing (the spindle 60 of Westring and the rotatable tray disclosed in fig. 3D of Lin are configured to rotate about a central axis and are capable of performing this claimed function with the claimed initial and final rotational state). All of the claimed structure is taught by the prior art and the prior art is reasonably capable of performing the claimed function and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 5, modified Westring further teaches bins in a second segment of a tray are configured to prevent the placement of the fragrance members therein (Figs. 8 and 9 show pockets 44, the pockets 44 are well capable of preventing a particular shape of a fragrance member therein). The claimed structure is taught by the prior art and the prior art is reasonably capable of performing the claimed function and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 12, modified Westring further teaches he dispenser includes an energy storage device (par. 72 discloses the device 20 is powered by batteries) and a reduction gear powered by the energy storage device (one of the gears from the plurality of gears 150, fig. 2), wherein the reduction gear includes an output gear; and the tray drive shaft includes a bottom end that is formed with spline teeth and configured for engagement with the output spline of the reduction gear (Fig. 2 shows the spindle 60 having a platter 122 with notches 140 that engage with the gear, par. 67).
Regarding claim 14, modified Westring further teaches a top plate of the cartridge is disposed above the tray cap (Fig. 2 inner lid 101 is disposed above the tray and its components), the top plate having a center opening the same size as the center opening in the top cap (Fig. 2, inner lid 101 has air flow channel 103 with an underside portion 101B that has some central opening for guiding air; par. 61), and the top cap having center opening the same size as the center opening in the tray stack and an offset opening that is aligned with the offset opening of the cartridge housing (the stack of trays disclosed by modified Westring has some top tray that reads on this limitation of a top cap with the same features as the other trays that reads on this limitation), the combination of tray cap and top plate thus configured to guide air flowing through the offset opening and through the first or second segments of the tray stack to combine with air flowing through the center opening of the tray stack before flowing out of the cartridge (the air flow channel 103 is for guiding air through and then out of the device, par. 61).
Regarding claim 15, modified Westring further teaches the cartridge includes memory that stores flash memory data indicative of one or more of a type of fragrance member stored within the cartridge, fragrance member usage history, target speeds of the air movers, or a target speed of the tray drive shaft (Lin in pars. 87, 154, and 278 teaches a sensor that communicates with a memory and processor for initiating the release by the activation of fans, therefore inherently disclosing a target activation fan speed); and
the dispenser includes a processor that is configured to communicate with the memory on the cartridge and control a speed of the air movers, or the output gear responsive to the flash memory data (par. 278 of Lin discloses the processor for communicating these instructions).
Regarding claim 16, modified Westring further teaches the dispenser includes a fan configured to draw air into the inlet (par. 90 and Fig. 4F of Lin discloses a Fan for circulation therethrough from an inlet), and a motion sensor, and the processor in the dispenser is configured to activate the fan upon the motion sensor detecting motion (par. 256 discloses the activation in response to a motion sensor sensing motion).
Regarding claim 22, modified Westring further teaches the dispenser includes a baseplate disposed below the cartridge basket (Fig. 2 housing body 120), the baseplate extends between an outer diameter edge and an inner diameter edge that are radially spaced apart from each other (the outer periphery of housing body 120 and the diameter surrounding the cartridge 130), the inner diameter edge defines a fan opening (there is an opening in the recessed area for receiving air from the fan 134, par. 61); and a center fan is disposed with the fan opening, operationally connected to the processor in the dispenser, and configured to direct air through the shaft opening of the tray stack (Westring discloses a fan 134, Lin discloses a processor for controlling the device in par. 278).
Regarding claim 23, modified Westring further teaches a baseplate of the dispenser defines an offset opening that is aligned with and with the offset opening of the cartridge housing (the outer periphery of housing body 120 and the diameter surrounding the cartridge 130 have an opening within recess 130 that is offset), and a second fan is disposed below the offset opening (fan 134), operationally connected to the processor in the dispenser, and configured to direct air through the offset opening (Lin discloses a processor for controlling the device in par. 278, the fan blows air to the tray 46; par. 61 of Westring).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westring (US 2004/0009103) in view of Jin (US 2018/0071425) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Albee (US 2011/0027124).
Regarding claim 4, modified Westring further teaches each of the trays extends from a tray bottom to a tray top by a tray height (the tray 46 and any additional trays 46 would have some height);
the walls of the bins in the first segment each extend from a tray bottom to a tray top (Fig. 8 shows the bins 44 extending from top to bottom of the tray 46). Westring appears to be silent with regards to a floor.
Albee (US 2011/0027124) discloses a fragrance dispenser (title) where a floor of a bin has openings to allow airflow (Figs. 2 and 5 drawer 110 with apertures 502 containing fragrance medium 510) but that will not allow fragrance members to pass through and has a height less than the tray height, the difference between the tray height and the floor height defining a bin depth (see fig. 5 showing this blocking and height that is less than a tray height that defines a bin depth). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that there is a floor as taught by Albee to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to securely hold the fragrance medium to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westring (US 2004/0009103) in view of Jin (US 2018/0071425) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Park (US 2018/0008924).
Regarding claim 8, Westring in view of Jin is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to axially spaced interrupted gears having teeth spanning a circumferential segment less than 360 degrees.
Park (US 2018/0008924) discloses a deodorizer with a gear configuration that includes an axially spaced interrupted gear with a set of gear teeth of at least one tooth that spans a circumferential segment less than 360 degrees for engaging other tray teeth for rotating (Fig. 7, driven gear 303, par. 64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that one of the gears is this partial gear configuration as taught by Park to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to save space and materials during use and manufacturing to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including gears of known types, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Westring in view of Jin is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to axially spaced interrupted gears having teeth spanning a circumferential segment less than 360 degrees.
Park (US 2018/0008924) discloses a deodorizer with a gear configuration that includes an axially spaced interrupted gear with a set of gear teeth of at least one tooth that spans a circumferential segment less than 360 degrees for engaging other tray teeth for rotating (Fig. 7, driven gear 303, par. 64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that one of the gears is this partial gear configuration to engage idler gears that are present as taught by Park to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to save space and materials during use and manufacturing to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including gears of known types, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Westring in view of Jin is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to axially spaced interrupted gears having teeth spanning a circumferential segment less than 360 degrees.
Park (US 2018/0008924) discloses a deodorizer with a gear configuration that includes an axially spaced interrupted gear (Fig. 7, driven gear 303, par. 64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that one of the gears is this partial gear configuration as taught by Park to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to save space and materials during use and manufacturing to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including gears of known types, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westring (US 2004/0009103) in view of Jin (US 2018/0071425) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ambikapathy (AU 202101212).
Regarding claim 17, Westring is set forth above with regards to claim 1 and Lin further teaches a motion sensor (par. 256), but modified Westring appears to be silent with regards to the processor predictively activating the fan based on a timing history or a preset schedule.
Ambikapathy (AU 202101212) discloses a dispenser system (par. 34) where a motion sensor predictively activates a fan based on a timing history of signals from the motion sensor detecting motion (par. 45 discloses machine learning algorithms to detect, by sensors, places utilized by a human in order to control the operation of the device preemptively). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that the processor, fan, and motion sensor operate according to the predictive model disclosed by Ambikapathy to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to predictively and more efficiently control the operation of the device to arrive at an improved dispenser system.
Regarding claim 18, modified Westring further teaches the activation of the fan is based on machine learning (see the rejection of claim 17 above).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westring (US 2004/0009103) in view of Jin (US 2018/0071425) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Harrell (US 2021/0015955).
Regarding claim 19, Westring is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to an LED array.
Harrell (US 2021/0015955) discloses an array of LEDs that are controlled by the device based on a motion sensor detecting motion (Fig. 5 LEDs 112, pars. 72, 87, and 97 disclose the device having LEDs that indicate a performance of the device and the device being controlled by motions sensors, reading on this limitation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that the device includes an array of LEDs that illuminate based on signals provided by the motion sensor detecting motion as taught by Harrell to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do to so to conveniently and automatically operate the device and to communicate to a user the status of the device to arrive at an improved fragrance dispenser.
Regarding claim 20, Westring is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to an LED array.
However, for the same reasons provided above with respect to claim 19, it would be obvious to modify Westring to include this LED array to illuminate a top of the cartridge.
Regarding claim 21, Westring is set forth with regards to claim 1 above but appears to be silent with regards to a ring-shaped lip with a touch sensing circuit board to detect gestures to adjust operational settings.
Harrell discloses a capacitive touch sensing circuit board (par. 88 discloses the device communicating with a smartphone via a touchscreen, which is inherently or at least obviously capacitive and comprising some circuit board of that type) for adjusting operational settings of the device (par. 97 discloses the processor of the smart phone being used to input commands for control of the device). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that the device includes some capacitive sensor for inputting settings to the device as taught by Harrell to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a convenient and conventional user interface type to arrive at an improved dispenser.
Regarding the limitation that the dispenser includes a ring-shaped lip with the circuit board: the modification of the device to have specifically a ring-shape lip with the circuit board is nothing more than a change of shape, as it would not affect the performance of the device at all. The mere change in shape of a prior art device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westring (US 2004/0009103) in view of Jin (US 2018/0071425) as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Kim (KR 102050278).
Regarding claim 24, modified Westring is set forth with regards to claim 1 above but appears to be silent with regards to housing louvers.
Kim (KR 102050278) teaches a dispenser (par. 11 discloses fragrance emitting) including housing louvers (Fig. 5 louver 250, also fig. 7 louver 344) that are at an opening (Figs. 5 and 7 show vent 241 and 346, respectively) that pivot between open and closed states, and are well capable of being opened by the blower of the device and closed otherwise as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that there is a biased louver at the opening of the cartridge basket as taught by Kim to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to controllably release fragrance and to prevent the flow from reversing into the housing when the fan is off to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including louvers at outlets of dispenser devices, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 25, modified Westring is set forth with regards to claim 2 above but appears to be silent with regards to housing louvers.
Kim (KR 102050278) teaches a dispenser (par. 11 discloses fragrance emitting) including housing louvers (Fig. 5 louver 250, also fig. 7 louver 344) that are at an opening (Figs. 5 and 7 show vent 241 and 346, respectively) that pivot between open and closed states, and are well capable of being opened by the blower of the device and closed otherwise as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Westring such that there is a biased louver at the opening of the cartridge basket as taught by Kim to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to controllably release fragrance and to prevent the flow from reversing into the housing when the fan is off to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including louvers at outlets of dispenser devices, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of the claimed inventions. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Westring in view of Lin.
Westring in view of Lin teach a dispenser with a tray stack (see the rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach the tray drive shaft being radially smaller than the inner diameter wall of the tray stack so that a rotation axis of the tray drive shaft is offset from the tray stack center. Therefore claims 6 and 7 are allowable.
Claims 11 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Westring in view of Lin.
Westring in view of Lin teaches a dispenser with a tray stack, but fails to teach inward facing gear teeth on the trays having a blocked segment with a first circumferential span and a cut away segment with a second circumferential span, the first segment being placed to prevent the driveshaft or idler gear teeth from engaging the tray, before the degree of initial rotation of the tray with in the cartridge, the second segment being placed so that at the final degree of rotation, the idler gear or driveshaft gear is positioned within the cutout and the teeth of the tray are disengaged from the teeth of the idler or driveshaft. Therefore, the claim is allowable over the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Westring in view of Lin.
Westring in view of Lin disclose a dispenser with a tray stack, but are silent with regards to cartridge louvers being pivotally coupled to a baseplate at the offset opening of the tray cap that is configured to pivot between a closed state and an open state. Therefore, the claim is allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758