DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 10-11 are 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.
I- Claim 10 is indefinite because “the window” (line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis.
II- Claim 11 is indefinite because “the window” (line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 3, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horth 6,129,244.
Horth discloses a dosage unit as seen in Figure 1, which comprises a body (2) configured to hold a cartridge (8, 9) containing a viscous material, a piston (12) configured to push a dose of the viscous material out of the cartridge by linear displacement of the piston toward an open tip (11) of the cartridge; a removeable cap (15) configured to cover the open tip of the cartridge; wherein the removeable cap includes an insert (17) that is configured to press against the open tip of the cartridge to close the open tip of the cartridge as seen in Figure 1; the dose is user-specified (col. 2, ll. 10-30). The dosage unit shown by Horth will perform the method recited in claims 12, 14 during normal operational use of the unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horth 6,129,244 in view of Hession et al. 2022/0135297.
Horth has taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the viscous plant material is cannabis extract. Hession et al. teach the use of a container (100) being used to store cannabis extract (col. 4, para. [0064-0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to substitute Horth’s product with the product of Hession et al., in order to store or dispense different type of product such as a non-tobacco product.
9. Claims 5-6, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horth 6,129,244 in view of Neill 5,599,314.
Horth has taught all the features of the claimed invention except that a window indicating the level of the product. Neill teaches the use of a window (22) from a housing to indicate the product’s level from a cartridge (3) via color coded element (21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to utilize Neill’s teaching onto Horth’s body to have a window as taught by Neill, in order to display a number of the product remaining.
10. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horth 6,129,244 in view of Neill 5,599,314.
Horth has taught all the features of the claimed invention except that a window indicating the level of the product. Neill teaches the use of a window (22) from a housing to indicate the product’s level from a cartridge (3) via color coded element (21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to utilize Neill’s teaching onto Horth’s body to have a window as taught by Neill, in order to display a number of the product remaining.
With respect to the claimed subject matter in that a green color in the window indicates 75% or more of the viscous material remains in the dosage unit and a red color in the window indicates 25% or less of the viscous material remains in the dosage unit. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the color-coded of Horth and Neill to be green and/or red because Applicant has not disclosed that having a green color in the window indicates 75% or more of the viscous plant material remains in the dosage unit and a red color in the window indicates 25% or less of the viscous plant material remains in the dosage unit provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the color-coded of Horth and Neill because the color-coded of Horth and Neill displays number of doses administered or remaining to be administered.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Horth and Neill to obtain the invention specified in claims 10 and 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 2, 4, 7-8, 13, 15, 18-19 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.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -: 4:00 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, Paul R. Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754