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 Amendment
Applicant’s 10-15-2025 Amendment was received. Claims 1-3, and 5 were amended. Claims. 1-5 are pending and examined in this action.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 202114745 U in view of US 6,601,746 to Buckley.
In re Claim 1, CN 202114745 U teaches an analytic sample tablet cutter comprising:
a base (see Fig. 1, #2) having a rectangular cradle socket surrounded by a rectangular boss extending upward from a top of the base (see annotated Fig. 1, below);
a cutting lever having a flat bottom face and a longitudinal blade (see annotated Fig. 1, below); and,
a hinge rotatably connecting a bottom rear region of the cutting lever to a rear region of the base (see Fig. 1, #3);
wherein when the cutting lever is rotated about the hinge to a closed configuration (when the cutting lever is rotated to cut the table in #5 this is a “closed configuration”), and flat bottom face of the cutting lever lies flush against the boss thereby fully enclosing the tablet cradle within a rectanguloid chamber formed by the cradle socket and the blade socket.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CN 202114745 U does not teach a blade socket in the flat bottom face, said blade socket housing the blade; a tablet cradle removably inserted into the rectangular cradle socket in the base, having a transverse tablet channel and a longitudinal blade slot bisecting the tablet cradle, the longitudinal blade slot having a depth greater than a depth of the tablet channel; the longitudinal blade extends into the blade slot a distance greater than the depth of the tablet channel.
However, Buckley teaches a blade socket in the flat bottom face (see Buckley, Fig. 1, surfaces #43/49 in which blade #51 is placed), said blade socket housing the blade (see Buckley, Fig. 1, #51); a tablet cradle removably inserted into the rectangular socket in the base (see Figs. 2, and 4-6, teaching a number of different tablet cradles, #210/110/310/410), having a transverse tablet channel (see annotated Fig. 6, below) and a longitudinal blade slot bisecting the tablet cradle (see annotated Fig. 6, below), the blade slot having a depth greater than a depth of the tablet channel (see annotated Fig. 6, below); the longitudinal blade extends into the blade slot a distance greater than the depth of the tablet channel (see Buckley Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
278
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
680
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the same field of invention, splitting tablets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the structure for receiving a tablet cradle to the socket of CN 202114745 U, as taught by Buckley. Doing so allows the user to split various shaped tables (see Buckley, Col. 2, ll. 44-53), as well as preventing cross-contamination of the device when tablets having different medications are split (see Buckley, Col. 2, ll. 54-62).
In re Claim 3, modified CN 202114745 U, in re Claim 3, teaches the blade extends into the blade slot to a point below the height of the boss and the bottom of the blade slot is below the height of the boss. Modified CN 202114745 U, in re Claim 3, does not teach wherein, when the tablet cradle is inserted into the cradle socket, the bottom of the tablet channel is above the height of the boss
However, Buckley teaches numerous tablet cradles for different shaped tablets, and the height of the boss remains the same regardless of the table cradle shapes/sizes. As such, for a very large/thick tablet the tablet cradle would provide for the bottom of the tablet channel would be below the height of the boss, and for a very small/thin tablet the tablet cradle would have a bottom that is above the height of the boss.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to design table cradles for different shaped workpieces, including a table cradle that has a bottom that is above the height of the boss, for small/thin tablets since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141.
In re Claim 4, modified CN 202114745 U, in re Claim 3, does not teach wherein the tablet cradle has an offset angle of between 10 degrees and 25 degrees relative to a vertical direction. However, Buckley teaches that it is known to angle the workpiece between 30-60 degrees (see Buckley, Fig. 7, “A.” and Col. 3, ll. 23-31). As such, Buckley teaches a range that is so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Here it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to angle the tablet cradle as taught by Buckley. Further, absent showing of unexpected results or criticality, one of ordinary skill int eh art, when designing a tablet cutter would experiment with the range to optimize the prior art through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05, II). Buckley teaches that an angle is desirable for enabling the tablet to be held in a desirable position for splitting (see Buckley, Col. 3, ll. 28-31). Conducting routine experimentation to arrive at an angle between 10 and 25 degrees on the structure of modified CN 202114745 U, in re Claim 1, would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II) since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re Claim 5, modified CN 202114745 U, in re Claim 4, teaches wherein a tablet is positioned in the tablet channel, and the tablet has a length less than a transverse length of the table channel and the tablet does not extend above a top of the tablet cradle. These limitations are directed to the workpiece or table size. The Examiner notes that claims are directed to the structure of the cutting device and do not affirmatively claim a workpiece. A workpiece of that claimed in Claim 5 can be positioned in the tablet channel of modified CN 202114745 U, in re Claim 4. In other words, the structure of modified CN 202114745 U, in re Claim 4 is capable of holding a workpiece has a length less than a transverse length of the table channel and the workpiece does not extend above a top of the tablet cradle.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 202114745 U in view of US 6,601,746 to Buckley, and further in view of US 10,786,434 to Casner.
In re Claim 2, modified CN 202114745 U, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the tablet channel with surfaces that curve upward toward a front and a rear (see e.g., Buckley, Fig. 6, #426/425).
However, modified CN 202114745 does not teach a bottom that is linear in a transverse direction. However, Casner teaches that it is known in the art of tablet holding structures to provide a bottom that is linear in a transverse direction to the blade (see Casner, Fig. 3, #114). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the bottom surface any known shape. Doing so is the substitution one known shape for another known shape to secure the workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Such a surface would be used with a “flat” surfaced workpiece. It would have been obvious to change the workpiece holder to accommodate specific shaped workpieces to allow the device to cut the workpiece.
Such a combination does not provide for the bottom having a transverse axial center of curvature located at least halfway down the depth of the tablet channel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective fling date to place the bottom surface, and therefore the transverse axial center of curvature halfway down the depth of the tablet channel. Doing so allows the user to cut a “thicker” workpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to change the depth of the bottom, up or down, depending the size of the workpiece/table “thickness” For a thicker table, the designer would lower the bottom surface and for a “thinner” tablet the designer would move the bottom surface upward.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior claim objections.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 overcame the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant argues that the surfaces of Buckley do not read on Claim 1. Applicant argues that “Figure 6 of Buckley does show a transverse tablet channel 421 bisected by a longitudinal blade slot, i.e. "trough 433." However, the longitudinal blade slot is NOT deeper than the transverse tablet channel.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the transvers table channel is #421 in Fig. 6. The Examiner disagrees and points out that the channel is the entire transfers surface of the “hole” in Fig. 6. The edges transverse channel includes surfaces that are “higher” than the plane of surface #433. As such, for example, when a workpiece that extends to either end of the “transverse channel,” in Fig. 6 of Buckley, that workpiece is above surface #433.
Applicant argues that it is unclear how the tray of Buckley could be combined with CN 202114745 as the trays of Buckley come with a finger engageable tabs. Applicant argues that one for ordinary skill could not combine Buckley and CN 202114745 because the finger engageable table would stick out of the structure of CN 202114745. The Examiner disagrees that one of ordinary skill in the art would bodily incorporate the two references. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Here the combined teachings would suggest, providing different “trays” for different workpieces would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would either remove the tab structure or would remove a portion of the cavity of CN 202114745 to allow the tab structure to extend beyond the perimeter of the cavity. Either of these two combinations would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724