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) 1-4, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoki Miyashita (JP 2017-192455 A – Miyashita) in view of Sarvik et al (US 5,346,200 – hereinafter Sarvik) and Junichi Matsuda (JP 2013-006696 A – hereinafter Matsuda).
Re Claims 1-4, 6, and 7:Miyashita discloses a medication support device comprising: a container (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D) configured to store a plurality of medicine packs (Y) stacked on top of each other in layers (see Fig. 1); a pickup device (30) configured to pick up a specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) from the container (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D); a conveyor (5) configured to convey the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) picked up by the pickup device (30); a medicine dispenser (40) configured to arrange the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) conveyed by the conveyor (5), wherein the pickup device (30) includes a suction device configured to suck and pick up the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) (see Figs. 1-15), but fails to teach and a pack passing-through portion on a bottom surface of the container, the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs picked up by the pickup device passing through the pack passing-through portion, the pack passing-through portion having a plurality of support portions configured to support the plurality of medicine packs, the plurality of support portions being fixation members fixed to the pack passing-through portion, the plurality of support portions varying in shape, the suction device is further configured to be moved downward to pull a front end of the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs, and the pickup device is further configured to be moved horizontally to pull out or pick up a rear end of the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs.
Sarvik teaches a pack passing-through portion (32) on a bottom surface of a container (30), a specific one of a plurality of (products) (72) picked up by a pickup device (60) passing through the pack passing-through portion (32), wherein the pickup device (60) includes a suction device configured to suck and pick up the specific one of the plurality of (products) (72), the suction device is further configured to be moved downward (see Figs. 1A-1C) to pull a front end of the specific one of the plurality of (products) (72), and the pickup device (60) is further configured to be moved horizontally (see Figs. 1C-1D) to pull out or pick up a rear end of the specific one of the plurality of (products) (72) (see Figs. 1A-3).. 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 Miyashita with that of Sarvik to allow for support of a stack in a reversed condition (dispensing from a bottom instead of a top), which would not change the primary purpose of the invention, while also assuring that a bottommost product from the stack is slid out while the remaining stack remains in place. Examiner 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).
Matsuda teaches a (product) passing-through portion having a plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) configured to support the plurality of (products), the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) being fixation members fixed to the (product) passing-through portion (at 10), the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) varying in shape (see Figs. 1-5, see Figs. 6-11). Re Claims 2 and 6: Matsuda teaches wherein the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) have different heights (see thicker structure of 13, see thinner structure of 15, also see angled portion of 15 see also lengths) to support the plurality of (products) (see Fig. 2). Re Claims 3 and 4: Matsuda teaches wherein one of the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) proximate to a portion of a specific one of the plurality of (products) has a greater height (see Fig. 2, differences in thickness, location, and heights, see angled portion as well) than another one of the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) (see Fig. 2). Re Claim 7: Matsuda teaches wherein one (at 13) of the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) proximate to a portion of the specific one of the plurality of (products) has a smaller length than a length of another (at 15) one of the support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) proximate to a portion of one of the plurality of (products) not to be sucked by the suction device (see Figs. 1-5, see Figs. 6-11). 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 Miyashita with that of Matsuda to allow for support of a stack in a reversed condition (dispensing from a bottom instead of a top), which would not change the primary purpose of the invention, while also allowing for supporting a stack from the bottom so that the stack remains in operable condition. Examiner 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).
Re Claims 11-14, 16 and 17:
Miyashita discloses a method of operating a medication support device, comprising: storing a plurality of medicine packs (Y) in a container (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D), the plurality of medicine packs (Y) stacked on top of each other in layers (see Fig. 1); picking up, using a pickup device (30), a specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) from the container (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D), conveying, using a conveyor (5), the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) picked up by the pickup device (30); and arranging, using a medicine dispenser (40), the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) conveyed by the conveyor (5), wherein the pickup device (30) includes a suction device, and the picking up the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) further includes, sucking and picking up, using the suction device, the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) (see Figs. 1-15), but fails to teach the container including a pack passing-through portion on a bottom surface of the container, the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs picked up by the pickup device passing through the pack passing-through portion, the pack passing- through portion having a plurality of support portions that support the plurality of medicine packs, the plurality of support portions being fixation members fixed to the pack passing-through portion, the plurality of support portions varying in shape; moving the suction device downward to pull a front end of the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs, and moving the pickup device horizontally to pull out or pick up a rear end of the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs.
Sarvik teaches a container (30) including a pack passing-through portion (32) on a bottom surface of the container (30), a specific one of the plurality of (products) (72) picked up by a pickup device (60) passing through the pack passing-through portion (32), wherein the pickup device (60) includes a suction device, and the picking up the specific one of the plurality of (products) (72) further includes, sucking and picking up, using the suction device, the specific one of the plurality of (products) (72), moving the suction device downward (see Figs. 1A-1C) to pull a front end of the specific one of the plurality of (products) (72), and moving the pickup device (60) horizontally (see Figs. 1C-1D) to pull out or pick up a rear end of the specific one of the plurality of (products) (72) (see Figs. 1A-3). 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 Miyashita with that of Sarvik to allow for support of a stack in a reversed condition (dispensing from a bottom instead of a top), which would not change the primary purpose of the invention, while also assuring that a bottommost product from the stack is slid out while the remaining stack remains in place. Examiner 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).
Matsuda teaches a (product) passing- through portion having a plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion ) that support the plurality of (products), the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) being fixation members fixed to the (product) passing-through portion (at 10), the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) varying in shape (see Figs. 1-5, see Figs. 6-11). Re Claims 12 and 16: Matsuda teaches wherein the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) have different heights (see thicker structure of 13, see thinner structure of 15, also see angled portion of 15 see also lengths) to support the plurality of (products) (see Fig. 2). Re Claims 13 and 14: Matsuda teaches wherein one of the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) proximate to a portion of a specific one of the plurality of (products) has a greater height (see Fig. 2, differences in thickness, location, and heights, see angled portion as well) than another one of the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) (see Fig. 2). Re Claim 17: Matsuda teaches wherein one (at 13) of the plurality of support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) proximate to a portion of the specific one of the plurality of (products) has a smaller length than a length of another (at 15) one of the support portions (13, 15 – 16 also appears to show a support portion) proximate to a portion of one of the plurality of (products) not to be sucked by the suction device (see Figs. 1-5, see Figs. 6-11). 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 Miyashita with that of Matsuda to allow for support of a stack in a reversed condition (dispensing from a bottom instead of a top), which would not change the primary purpose of the invention, while also allowing for supporting a stack from the bottom so that the stack remains in operable condition. Examiner 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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita in view of Sarvik and Matsuda and further in view of Terashima et al. (5,536,472 – hereinafter Terashima).
Re Claims 5 and 15:
Miyashita in view of Sarvik and Matsuda discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of support portions are a single integrated unit.
Terashima further in view teaches wherein a plurality of support portions (22a, 22b) are a single integrated unit (see Fig. 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 Miyashita in view of Sarvik and Matsuda with that of Terashima to reduce the number of parts of a device. Examiner further notes that a one-piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita in view of Sarvik and Matsuda with that of Groover et al. (US 4,717,043 – hereinafter Groover).
Re Claims 9 and 19:
Miyashita in view of Sarvik and Matsuda discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach a container includes a pressing member movable downward in a vertical direction; and the pressing member is configured to press down a plurality of (products) stored in the container by self weight.
Groover further in view teaches wherein a container includes a pressing member (144) movable downward in a vertical direction; and the pressing member (144) is configured to press down a plurality of (products) stored in a container by self weight (see Fig. 10). 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 Miyashita in view of Sarvik and Matsuda with that of Groover in order to keep a stack orderly within a housing/magazine, while also assuring feeding downwardly.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita in view of Sarvik and Matsuda with that of Thorburn et al. (US 2014/0116913 A1 – hereinafter – hereinafter Thorburn).
Re Claims 10 and 20:
Miyashita in view of Sarvik and Matsuda discloses the device of claim 1, including wherein the plurality of medicine packs (Y) include a plurality of medicine packages in each of which a plurality of medicines (K) are packed (see Miyashita Fig. 15), but fails to specifically teach bound packages in which the plurality of medicine packages are stacked on top of each other in layers and bound together.
Thorburn further in view teaches bound (products) (by way of 3) in which a plurality of (products) are stacked on top of each other in layers and bound together (see Figs. 101-8). 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 Miyashita in view of Sarvik and Matsuda with that of Thorburn so as to hold a stack of products together prior to loading, thus, making them easier to handle.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
8. 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.
9. 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