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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 10/21/2025, wherein claims 8, 15 and 16 were amended; claims 1-7 were canceled; and claims 16-17 were added. Claims 8-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, line 9, it appears “(a “Cover Front Protrusion”)” should be deleted from the claim since only reference numerals may be contained in parenthesis in a claim. Examiner suggests amending all instances of “Cover Front Protrusion” in claim 15 to read “protrusion”.
Claim 17 appears to be a duplicate of claim 10. Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 8-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kampf et al. (US 2007/0062964).
Regarding claims 8, 11, 12 and 14, Kampf discloses a multi-cell pillbox (See Figs. 11-12), comprising: a base portion (at 12 in Fig. 11 and at 102 in Fig. 12) comprising a set of N cells organized in one or more rows, each row including M (7) cells (See Fig. 12); i top cover portions (at 14 in Fig.11 and at 114 in Fig. 12) configured to respectively fit over the N (7 – as shown in Fig. 12) cells, where i is a number (1) of rows of the base portion, each cover portion including an individual cover for each of the M cells in each row, the M individual covers configured to respectively close over the M cells in each row of the base portion (as shown in Fig. 12), each individual cover including a protrusion (at 26) that protrudes outwards horizontally and then curves upwards (See Fig. 2 wherein the protrusion 26 extends outward horizontally to the right then has a portion that curves upward toward the top edge of 26), configured to fit underneath a corresponding receiver (at 28 in Fig. 2 and 11); wherein, in a front portion of each cell of the base portion, there is provided a push tab (at 18 in Fig. 11) connected to the base portion via one or more flexible members, the push tab including, at a rear portion thereof, a receiver (at 28), the receiver thus configured, when the push button is in an upright position, to hold the protrusion of the individual cover for that cell in place underneath the receiver, thereby closing the cover over the cell (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kampf discloses the top cover portion further including a hinge (at 16/20) connecting each individual cover to a front wall of a row of the base portion.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Kampf discloses the hinge has a thickness T, configured to generate tension between an individual cover and a corresponding cell of the base portion when closed.
Regarding claim 15, Kampf discloses a method of providing a multi-cell pillbox (See Figs. 11 and 12), comprising: providing a base portion (at 12/112) comprising a set of N cells organized in one or more rows, each row including M cells; providing i top cover portions (at 14 in Fig. 11 and 114 in Fig. 12) configured to respectively fit over the N cells, where i is a number of rows of the base portion, each cover portion including an individual cover for the M cells in each row; configuring the M individual covers to respectively close over the M cells in each row of the base portion; providing each individual cover with a protrusion (at 26) that protrudes outwards horizontally from the end of the cover and then curves upwards (See Fig. 2 wherein the protrusion 26 extends outward horizontally to the right then has a portion that curves upward toward the top edge of 26), and configuring the protrusion to fit into underneath a corresponding receiver (at 28); providing, in a front portion of each cell of the base portion, a push tab (at 18) connected to the base portion via one or more flexible members, the push tab including, at a rear portion thereof, a receiver (at 28); and configuring the receiver to, when the push tab is in an upright position, hold the protrusion of the cover for that cell underneath it, thereby closing the cover over the cell (as shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 16, Kampf discloses providing each individual cover of the top cover portion with a hinge (at 16/20) that connects the cover to a front wall of a row of the base portion.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampf et al. (US 2007/0062964) as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Henderson et al. (US 7,845,147). As described above, Kampf discloses the claimed invention except for the specific material of the base and cover. However, Henderson teaches it is well known in the art to form containers from polypropylene for the purpose of controlling the tearing of the containers (column 4, lines 43-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base and cover of Kampf to be formed from a polypropylene material as taught by Henderson in order to provide sufficient strength. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735