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 the newly amended independent claims are in condition for allowance since the prior art of record does not teach and/or suggest the limitations therein.
In response, the Applicant is herein referred to the new obviousness rejection of independent claim 5.
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.
Claims 5,8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uema (US 2004/0134043)
in view of Kijowski et al. (US 9,412,217)
Claim 5, Uema discloses a medicine supplying apparatus comprising: a stage (1) including a flat surface; and a manual feeding unit (57) including a base part (16) detachably attached to the stage (1), and a conveyer (29) held by the base part, wherein the conveyer includes a plurality of buckets (19) having a cylindrical shape having an upper opening end and a lower opening end, and configured to move in a state where the lower opening end is in contact with the flat surface (figs.1-9), and the lower opening end has a shutter (see figures).
Although Uema does not disclose the lower opening end has no shutter, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Uema does not disclose a through hole that is open at the flat surface and a conveyer
configured to eject the drug from the through hole.
Kijowski discloses a through hole (36) that is open at the flat surface (32) and a conveyer (22)
configured to eject the drug from the through hole (36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Uema with a through
hole that is open at the flat surface and a conveyer configured to eject the drug from the through hole
because it would enable the passage of medicines discharged by the medicine feeder.
Claim 8, Uema discloses wherein an opening edge that makes contact with the flat surface (1) is
formed in a shape in at least one bucket (19) of the plurality of buckets.
Although Uema does not disclose an opening edge formed in a brush shape, it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to implement such a
configuration since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of
the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-4 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: A medicine supplying
apparatus including "wherein the conveyer includes a plurality of buckets having a cylindrical shape that is open at upper and lower ends, and configured to move in a state where an entire circumference of the lower end is in contact with the flat surface" in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Claims 6-7 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.
Claim 9 is allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: A medicine supplying
apparatus including "wherein the base part holds the conveyer such that a locus of a movement of the
plurality of buckets has an annular shape, and wherein the stage includes a positioning part inside the
locus, the positioning part being configured to set a position where the base part is attached by being fit
to a fit part of the base part " in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the
prior art.
Conclusion
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