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.
Applicant Argues:
The plain and ordinary meaning of "integrally joined" is that two or more components are connected in a way that they form a single, inseparable unit. Yamamoto discloses, "A mounting part 20 is provided in the vicinity of the first outer wall surface 13 of the case 12, in order to detachably mount the case 12 on an apparatus for supplying electronic component chips with the outlet 18 being directed to such an apparatus" (italicized emphasis added) (col. 7, lines 5-11). That is, the mounting part 20 and the case 12 of Yamamoto are two separate and distinct components that are separable or detachable.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that col. 7 lines 5-11 appears to describe mounting the mounting part 20 to a separate device and not the case 12. Examiner notes that whether the mounting part is separate or integral to case 12 is a matter of engineering obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for a one-piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a matter of obvious engineering choice within the skill of the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Applicant Argues:
Further, Williams does not teach or suggest the features of "a transport section including a transport path integrally joined to the case body" and "the case includes a first member and a second member that are combined and joined to each other and which together define the case body and the transport section" (bolded emphasis added) as recited in Applicant's Claim 1. Paragraphs [0072] and [0080] of Williams teach that the bin 150 "described generally as having a tablet-filled hopper 153 "can be removed from a frame 44 (shown in Fig.3 of Williams) to adjust the size of the entry to the dispensing channel 154. Thus, Williams does not teach or suggest that the dispensing channel 154 is "integrally joined" to the hopper 153 as required by Applicant's Claim 1.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that paragraphs [0072] and [0080] appear to describe mounting the removing the member (153) from a frame (44 – mounting cabinet type) to adjust a width of an opening from within. Examiner notes that whether the member is separate or integral to dispensing channel 154 is a matter of engineering obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for a one-piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a matter of obvious engineering choice within the skill of the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
For the reasons stated above, the claims stand rejected.
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 13-15 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 Alan F. Schwimmer (5,462,198 – hereinafter Schwimmer).
Re Claim 1:
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 wherein the case includes a first member and a second member that are combined and joined to each other and which together define the case body and the transport section.
Schwimmer teaches wherein a case includes a first member (8) and a second member (9) that are combined and joined to each other and which together define the case body and the transport section (see Figs. 1-7) (see col. 4 lines 44-46). 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 Schwimmer to allow for a modular dispenser which would allow for changing of parts or construction of parts. Examiner further notes that one-piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a matter of obvious engineering choice within the skill of the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
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).
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).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2004/004085 A1 – hereinafter Williams) in view of Schwimmer.
Re Claim 1:
Williams discloses a case (at 153) to be set to a feeder (62) to supply a (product) to a supply target (158), the case (at 153) comprising: a case body (at 153) including a housing space (at 153) to house a plurality of (products) (see Fig. 29); a transport section (154) including a transport path (at 154) integrally joined to the case body (at 153) to transport the plurality of (products) to the supply target (158) (see Figs. 19 and 28), and a discharge port (opening of 158) to discharge the plurality of (products) from the transport path (at 154); and a communication port (near 190b – see Fig. 29 – opening to transport path) to communicate the housing space (at 153) and the transport path (at 154) with each other and enable the plurality of (products) to move from the housing space (at 153) to the transport path (at 154) (see Figs. 19-29), but fails to teach wherein the case includes a first member and a second member that are combined and joined to each other and which together define the case body and the transport section.
Schwimmer teaches wherein a case includes a first member (8) and a second member (9) that are combined and joined to each other and which together define the case body and the transport section (see Figs. 1-7) (see col. 4 lines 44-46). 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 Williams with that of Schwimmer to allow for a modular dispenser which would allow for changing of parts or construction of parts. Examiner further notes that one-piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a matter of obvious engineering choice within the skill of the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Further Re Claim 3:
Williams discloses wherein the case body (at 153) includes a first sloped surface (near153) with a downward gradient sloped toward the communication port (near 190b – see Fig. 29 – opening to transport path) to enable the plurality of (products) housed in the housing space (at 153) to be transported to the communication port (near 190b – see Fig. 29 – opening to transport path).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Schwimmer.
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.
Schwimmer teaches wherein a first sloped surface (36, 40) 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 (surface) (see col. 3 lines 23-30 and col. 6 lines 25-47). 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 Schwimmer so as to allow for product to be guided/flow towards an outlet . Examiner further notes that 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 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Schwimmer.
Re Claim 4:
Williams discloses the device 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.
Schwimmer teaches wherein a first sloped surface (36, 40) 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 (surface) (see col. 3 lines 23-30 and col. 6 lines 25-47). 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 Williams with that of Schwimmer so as to allow for product to be guided/flow towards an outlet . Examiner further notes that 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 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Schwimmer and further in view of Karwacki, Jr. et al. (US 7,832,591 B1 – hereinafter Karwacki).
Re Claim 5:Williams in view of Schwimmer discloses 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), but fails to teach the feeder enables the plurality of components to move up along the second sloped surface by applying vibration to the second sloped surface.
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 Williams in view of Schwimmer with that of 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 Williams in view of Schwimmer and further in view of Karwacki.
Re Claim 6:Williams in view of Schwimmer and further in view of 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Schwimmer.
Re Claim 8:Yamamoto in view of Schwimmer discloses an antistatic case (see col. 6 lines 25-55), 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Schwimmer and further in view of Yamamoto.
Re Claim 8:
Williams discloses the device of claim 1, 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
Yamamoto further in view teaches an antistatic case (see col. 6 lines 25-55), 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention and through routine experimentation and optimization, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Williams in view of Schwimmer with that of Yamamoto, 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 Schwimmer and further in view of Towfiq et al. (US 2019/0113540 A1 – hereinafter Towfiq).
Re Claims 10 and 11:
Yamamoto in view of Schwimmer 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 Schwimmer 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 Schwimmer and further in view of Erik de Wit (US 4,230,237 – hereinafter Wit).
Re Claim 12:
Yamamoto in view of Schwimmer discloses the device of claim 3, 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 Schwimmer 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.
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 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