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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-3, 7-9, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 4,889,229 – hereinafter Yamamoto) in view of Ito et al. (US 5,853,079 – hereinafter Ito).
Re Claims 1 and 3:
Yamamoto discloses a case (11) to be set to a feeder (45) to supply a component (61) to a supply target (at 64), the case (11) comprising: a case body (11) including a housing space (at 28) to house a plurality of components (61) (see Figs. 7 and 8); a transport section (20) including a transport path (at 18) integrally joined to the case body (11) (see Fig. 7) to transport the plurality of components (61) to the supply target (at 64) (see Fig. 14), and a discharge port (near 13) to discharge the plurality of components (61) from the transport path (at 18); and a communication port (near 31, near 35 - between) to communicate the housing space (at 28) and the transport path (at 18) with each other and enable the plurality of components (61) to move from the housing space (at 28) to the transport path (at 18) (see Figs. 1-14) (see Figs. 1-20), the case body (11) includes a bottom plate portion (12) extending in a longitudinal direction (see Fig. 3); the transport section (20) includes a bottom plate section (near 21 – see Fig. 1) extending in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 1); the bottom plate section (near 21 – see Fig. 1) of the transport section (20) includes a mounting portion (26) to engage a portion of an upper surface of the feeder (45) when the case (11) is set to the feeder (45) (see Fig. 11); and the discharge port (near 13) opens upward in a vertical direction when the case (11) is set to the feeder (45), but fails to teach each of the bottom plate portion of the case body and the bottom plate section of the transport section includes a mounting portion to engage a portion of an upper surface of the feeder when the case is set to the feeder.
Ito teaches each of the bottom plate portion (with mounting portion 31b – see Fig. 4) of a case body and a bottom plate section (with mounting portion 31a – see Fig. 3) of a transport section includes a mounting portion (31b, 31a) to engage a portion (17b, 17a) of an upper surface of a feeder (19) when the case is set to the feeder (19) (see Figs. 1-27). Re Claim 3: Ito teaches wherein a case body includes a first sloped surface (25d) with a downward gradient sloped toward a communication port to enable a plurality of components housed in a housing space to be transported to the communication port (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 Yamamoto with that of Ito to provide an alternative supporting configuration for a case which would allow for mounting a case horizontally while still being able to dispense from the case in the horizontal position. Examiner notes that Yamamoto teaches a transport portion and a case bottom portion, Ito shows that mounting portions can be on the front of the case adjacent the dispensing side and located further towards the back of the case on the lower wall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the configuration as possible of having a separate mounting portion on the transport portion (as already disclosed by Yamamoto) and a mounting portion distinct from on the bottom wall (as shown by Ito) in combination, as the mounting portions would be used in a predictable manner in view of the combination as cited and would not require any further additional inventive skill.
Further Re Claim 2:
Yamamoto discloses a shutter (25) to open and close the communication port (near 31, near 35 - between) (see Figs. 7-9).
Further Re Claim 3:
Yamamoto discloses wherein the case body (11) includes a first sloped surface (29, 30) with a downward gradient sloped (29, see Figs. 7 and 8 – shows downward gradient slope) (29 and 30, see Fig. 14 – shows downward gradient slope) toward the communication port (near 31, near 35 - between) to enable the plurality of components (61) housed in the housing space (at 28) to be transported to the communication port (near 31, near 35).
Further Re Claim 7:
Yamamoto discloses wherein the case body (11) has a flat box shape that has a larger dimension in a longitudinal direction than a dimension in a lateral direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 1).
Re Claim 8:Yamamoto in view of Ito discloses an antistatic case (see col. 6 lines 25-55 of Yamamoto), but fails to specifically teach wherein a materials of the case body has a resistivity of about 10E8 Q/mm2 to about 10E11 Q/mm2. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further Re Claim 9:
Yamamoto discloses wherein the shutter (25) includes an elongated strip-shaped film (see col. 7 lines 35-40).
Further Re Claim 13:
Yamamoto discloses wherein the case body (11) includes an upper guide (see near 25 of Fig. 14) above the communication port (near 31, near 35 - between), and a curved guide (see curved section which follows from 25 towards the bottom of Fig. 14) below the communication port (near 31, near 35 - between), and a bottom guide (see bottom section which follows from curve section in a direction of left to right of Fig. 14) below the curved guide (see curved section which follows from 25 towards the bottom of Fig. 14) (top of device being near 28, bottom of device being near 61).
Further Re Claim 14:
Yamamoto discloses wherein the shutter is slidably inserted across the upper guide (see near 25 of Fig. 14), the curved guide (see curved section which follows from 25 towards the bottom of Fig. 14), and the bottom guide (see bottom section which follows from curve section in a direction of left to right of Fig. 14).
Further Re Claim 15:
Yamamoto discloses a slider (19) including a plate piece to open and close the shutter (25) is attached to a rear end of the shutter (25) (see Fig. 9).
Re Claim 16:
Yamamoto discloses a case (11) to be set to a feeder (45) to supply a component (61) to a supply target (at 64), the case (11) comprising: a case body (11) including a housing space (at 28) to house a plurality of components (61) (see Figs. 7 and 8); a transport section (20) including a transport path (at 18) integrally joined to the case body (11) (see Fig. 7) to transport the plurality of components (61) to the supply target (at 64) (see Fig. 14), and a discharge port (near 13) to discharge the plurality of components (61) from the transport path (at 18); and a communication port (near 31, near 35 - between) to communicate the housing space (at 28) and the transport path (at 18) with each other and enable the plurality of components (61) to move from the housing space (at 28) to the transport path (at 18) (see Figs. 1-14) (see Figs. 1-20), but fails to teach a plurality of mounting portions on a bottom surface of the case at intervals in a longitudinal direction to detachably set the case horizontally to the feeder; wherein the plurality of mounting portions includes a first plurality of mounting portions that are provided adjacent to the transport section and a second plurality of mounting portions that are provided adjacent to the case body.
Ito teaches a plurality of mounting portions (31a, 31b) on a bottom surface (25) of a case at intervals in a longitudinal direction to detachably set the case horizontally to a feeder (at 13) (see Fig. 5); wherein the plurality of mounting portions (31a, 31b) includes a first plurality of mounting portions (first and second leg portions of 31a which form U shaped recess) that are provided adjacent to a transport section (output section) and a second plurality of mounting portions (first and second leg portions of 31b which form U shaped recess) that are provided adjacent to the case body (near 25) (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 Yamamoto with that of Ito to provide an alternative supporting configuration for a case which would allow for mounting a case horizontally while still being able to dispense from the case in the horizontal position. Examiner notes that Yamamoto teaches a transport portion and a case bottom portion, Ito shows that mounting portions can be on the front of the case adjacent the dispensing side and located further towards the back of the case on the lower wall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the configuration as possible of having a separate mounting portion on the transport portion (as already disclosed by Yamamoto) and a mounting portion distinct from on the bottom wall (as shown by Ito) in combination, as the mounting portions would be used in a predictable manner in view of the combination as cited and would not require any further additional inventive skill.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ito and Kirby et al. (US 2011/0011882 A1 – hereinafter Kirby).
Re Claim 4:
Yamamoto discloses the device as described of claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the first sloped surface is sloped at about 3 degrees or more and about 15 degrees or less with respect to a horizontal direction when the case is set to the feeder.
Ito teaches wherein a first sloped surface (25d) is sloped at about 3 degrees or more and about 15 degrees or less with respect to a horizontal direction when a case is set to a feeder (Examiner notes that Ito teaches 20 degrees which is about 15 – see col. 8 lines 1-29). 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 Yamamoto with that of Ito so as to allow for product to be guided/flow towards an outlet .
Kirby further in view teaches a first sloped surface (36) is sloped at about 3 degrees or more and about 15 degrees or less with respect to a horizontal direction (see paragraph [0059]). (Examiner notes that Ito discourages the use of angles less than 20 degrees. Examiner finds that Ito discourages in situations where there is no assistance to allowing the product to move, thus, in situations where vibration may be used, Ito’s teachings of discouraging shallow angles does not apply because the problem of the product being able to move is overcome by the vibratory means). 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 Yamamoto with that of Ito and Kirby to allow for more shallow angles which would be possible when using a vibratory assistance type device, as suggested by Kirby, and as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ito, and further in view of Williams et al. (US 2004/004085 A1 – hereinafter Williams) and Karwacki, Jr. et al. (US 7,832,591 B1 – hereinafter Karwacki).
Re Claim 5:
Yamamoto in view of Ito discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the transport path includes a second sloped surface with an upward gradient sloped toward the supply target; and the feeder enables the plurality of components to move up along the second sloped surface by applying vibration to the second sloped surface.
Williams further in view teaches wherein the transport path (at 154) includes a second sloped surface (see bottommost surface above Fig. 26) with an upward gradient sloped toward the supply target (158) (see Williams, Figs. 19-29). 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 Yamamoto in view of Ito with that of Williams, to allow for additional means which allow for increasing the separation of products from one another.
Karwacki further in view teaches a feeder enables a plurality of components to move up along the second sloped surface by applying vibration to the second sloped surface (see col. 14 lines 25-31) (Examiner notes that Karwacki teaches using vibration in place of the gas drive mechanisms (which are located at the second surface)). 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 Yamamoto in view of Ito with that of Williams and Karwacki to provide an alternative moving mechanism for products as known within the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ito, Williams, and Karwacki.
Re Claim 6:Yamamoto in view of Ito, Williams, and Karwacki discloses the device of claim 5, but fails to specifically teach wherein the second sloped surface is sloped at about 30 or more and about 100 or less with respect to the horizontal direction when the case is set to the feeder, However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ito and further in view of Towfiq et al. (US 2019/0113540 A1 – hereinafter Towfiq).
Re Claims 10 and 11:
Yamamoto in view of Ito discloses the device of claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the shutter is made of polyethylene terephthalate.
Towfiq further in view teaches wherein a shutter (11) is made of polyethylene terephthalate (see paragraphs [0034-0035]). Re Claim 11: Towfiq teaches wherein a width of a shutter (110) is larger than a width of a port (see Fig. 1B, shutter is covered by guides which are part of the opening). 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 Yamamoto in view of Ito with that of Towfiq so as to assist in preventing the buildup of static electricity while maintaining the orientation of a shutter.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ito and further in view of Erik de Wit (US 4,230,237 – hereinafter Wit).
Re Claim 12:
Yamamoto in view of Ito discloses the device of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the shutter includes an opening with a same or substantially a same shape as the communication port.
Wit further in view teaches wherein a shutter (12) includes an opening (24) with a same or substantially a same shape as a communication port (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 Yamamoto in view of Ito with that of Wit to allow for alignment of apertures for dispensing to assure proper product is able to pass through.
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
Prosecution Insights