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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that newly amended independent claim 1 is in condition for allowance.
In response, claim 1 has been allowed in the present office action.
Applicant argues that that the Examiner has completely failed to provide a proper motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make such a modification as required under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner only makes a conclusory statement that allegedly reversing the opening from the top surface of the storage cylinder 20 to the bottom surface of the storage cylinder 20 is a simple "reversal of the essential working parts," but fails to identify any motive for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make such a change. Additionally, Applicants maintain that Miyashita fails to disclose or suggest "the pickup device is further configured to place the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs in the medicine dispenser with a vertical posture different from that of a horizontal posture of the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs while it was stored in the container,”. As previously argued, Miyashita only discloses that a medicine pack Y is picked up (e.g., sucked up) from a storage cylinder 20, is moved horizontally, and then is dropped down onto a tray 4. Miyashita does not disclose or suggest that the suction mechanism 5 is capable of placing the medicine pack Y in a vertical posture inside of the tray 4 as required by claim 12. Instead, it is clear that the medicine pack Y is dropped into the tray 4 and therefore the medicine pack Y's posture will stay in a horizontal posture, at least because Miyashita fails to disclose or suggest that the suction unit 30 of the suction mechanism 5 is capable of rotating such that the medicine pack Y could be placed in a vertical orientation. Further, even if the medicine pack Y were placed in the tray 4 in a vertical posture, there is no structure within the tray 4 to keep the medicine pack Y in the vertical posture, and thus the medicine pack Y would fall down and into a horizontal posture.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. There’s nothing in the claim limitation that indicated that the suction mechanism recited in claim 12 rotated to place the medicine pack in a vertical orientation. Furthermore, the claim limitation in question does not recite the medicine packs are stored in a vertical orientation after being placed in a vertical posture. The claim merely recited the medicine packs are placed in a vertical orientation not stored in a vertical orientation. Therefore, during placement of the medicine packs after being removed from the container of Miyashita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a configuration since it merely requires altering the way the pickup device (3) picks up the medicine
packs from the container and the manner in which the medicine pack is dropped into container 4. Furthermore, since the medicine packs are not stored in a vertical posture but only placed into the container in a vertical orientation, such configuration only requires routine skill in the art to implement as to how the suction device drops the medicine packs such that it’s a vertical orientation.
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 12-19,21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita (JP
6429334).
Claim 12, Miyashita discloses a medication support device comprising: a container (20) configured to store a plurality of medicine packs; a pickup device (3) configured to pick up a specific one of the plurality of medicine packs from the container; a conveyor (5) configured to convey the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs picked up by the pickup device; a medicine dispenser (4) configured to arrange the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs conveyed by the conveyor; and a separator (3 functions as a separator as well since it blows pressurized air from the suction unit thereby removing the medicine package Y from the suction unit) configured to make the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs picked up by the pickup device separate from the pickup device, wherein the pickup device (3) is further configured to place the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs in the medicine dispenser with a posture of the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs while it was stored in the container (3).
Although Miyashita does not disclose the pickup device (3) is further configured to place the
specific one of the plurality of medicine packs in the medicine dispenser with a vertical posture different
from that of a horizontal posture of the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs while it was
stored in the container (20), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement
such a configuration since it merely requires altering the way the pickup device (3) picks up the medicine
packs from the container, which requires routine skill in the art to implement.
Claim 13, Miyashita discloses wherein the pickup device (3) includes: a suction device (30)
configured to suction one of the plurality of medicine packs from the container (see figures); a suction-
device driver (50,53-54) configured to drive the suction device (30); and a suction-device guide (51)
configured to move the suction device (30).
Claim 14, Miyashita discloses wherein the pickup device (30) comprises a medicine pack
controller (pickup device 30 inherently possess a controller; once it picks up a medicine pack Y, the
translation and/or movement of the pickup device after grasping a medicine pack involves controlling
the position, orientation, and posture of the medicine pack Y until the medicine pack is released)
configured to control a position and a posture of the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y)
picked up by the pickup device (30).
Claim 15, Miyashita discloses wherein the separator (3) is configured to act on an area around a
contact portion between the suction device (30) and the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs
(Y) picked up by the pickup device.
Claim 16, Miyashita discloses wherein the separator (3 functions as a separator as well since it
blows pressurized air from the suction unit thereby removing the medicine package Y from the suction
unit) is configured to act on an area a contact portion between the suction device (30) and the specific
one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) picked up by the pickup device (3).
Although Miyashita does not explicitly disclose configured to act on an area above a center of a
contact portion, it would have been very obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to implement any number of contact portion which the separator acts upon the medicine
packs since this merely requires reorienting the manner in which the separator contacts the medicine
packs and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 17, Miyashita discloses wherein the separator (3 functions as a separator as well since it
blows pressurized air from the suction unit thereby removing the medicine package Y from the suction
unit) is configured to operate together with an operation of the suction-device driver (50,53-54).
Claim 18, Miyashita discloses the separator (3 functions as a separator as well since it blows
pressurized air from the suction unit thereby removing the medicine package Y from the suction unit) is
configured to partially serve as a medicine pack controller configured to control a position and a posture
(pickup device 30 inherently possess a controller; once it picks up a medicine pack Y, the translation
and/or movement of the pickup device after grasping a medicine pack involves controlling the position,
orientation, and posture of the medicine pack Y until the medicine pack is released) of one of the
plurality of medicine packs picked up by the pickup device (3).
Claim 19, Miyashita discloses wherein the separator (3 functions as a separator as well since it
blows pressurized air from the suction unit thereby removing the medicine package Y from the suction
unit) is configured to act on the specific one of the plurality of medicine packs (Y) before suction holding
of one of the plurality of medicine packs by a suction device (30) is released.
Claim 21, Miyashita discloses wherein the plurality of medicine packs (Y) include a plurality of
medicine packages in each of which a plurality of medicines are packed (Y) and a plurality of bound
medicine packages in which the plurality of medicine packages are stacked on top of each other in layers
(fig.1) and bound together. Claim 21 fails to further structurally limit the apparatus claim and only
further limit the material handled by the apparatus and therefore does not determine patentability (see
at least MPEP 2114,2115).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita (JP 6429334)
in view of Chirnomas (US 2006/0011646).
Claim 20, Miyashita does not disclose a sensor around the separator, the sensor configured to
detect a presence of any one of the plurality of medicine packs, and the separator is further configured
to perform separating operation based on detection information obtained by the sensor after suction
holding of one of the plurality of medicine packs by a suction device is released.
Chirnomas discloses a sensor around the separator (para.0009; suction cup & valve assembly),
the sensor configured to detect a presence any one of the plurality articles, and the separator
configured to perform separating operation based on detection information obtained by the sensor
after suction holding of one of the articles (para.0009). Therefore, it would have been very obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Miyashita with a
sensor around the separator, the sensor configured to detect a presence of any one of the plurality of
medicine packs, and the separator is further configured to perform separating operation based on
detection information obtained by the sensor after suction holding of one of the plurality of medicine
packs by a suction device is released simply to have a reliable and simply product contact sensor so that
the machine controller can be effectively and efficiently advised.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,3-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A medication support device including “a width of the opening on the bottom face of the container in a given direction is narrower than a width of the plurality of medicine packs in the given direction, and both ends of the plurality of medicine packs in the given direction are at positions outside both ends of the opening in the given direction when the plurality of medicine packs are stored in the container “ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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.
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