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’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
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) 1-5, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin Lien-Fang Chu (US 6,378,735 B1 – hereinafter Chu) in view of Dwork et al. (US 8,657,155 B2 – hereinafter Dwork) and Kahn et al. (US 2005/0029154 A1 – hereinafter Kahn).
Re Claims 1 and 12:
Chu discloses a (product) dispenser, comprising: a cap (11, 13) configured to attach to a (product container (3)); the cap (11, 13) including a (product) distributor (at 11 – inner portion from lower inlet to upper outlet) having an inlet (entrance into cap – near 11), an outlet (16), and a pathway (from inlet to outlet) from the inlet to the outlet (see Fig. 2), the (product) distributor (defined by entrance into cap near 11) being configured to receive (products) from the (product) container through the inlet and dispense the (products) from the pathway (from inlet to outlet) through the outlet (16), a collector (21) coupled to the cap (11) and having a collection space (at 21) configured to receive the (product) from the outlet (16) of the tablet distributor (at 11), the collection space (at 21) having a volume that is adjustable; wherein the collector (21) has a first configuration in which fluid communication between the collection space (at 21) and the cap (at 11) is closed, and a second configuration in which fluid communication between the collection space (at 21) and the cap (at 11) is open (see Fig. 4) (see col. 2 lines 35-52); and a dosage actuator (at 22), wherein actuation of the dosage actuator (at 22) to change a selected dosage changes the volume of the collection space (at 21) (see col. 2 lines 35-52) (see Figs. 1-5), but fails to teach the tablet distributor including a plurality of pegs spaced from one another in the pathway.
Dwork teaches a tablet distributor (6) including a plurality of pegs (11) spaced from one another in a pathway (from inlet to outlet) (see Figs. 1-63). 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 Chu with that of Dwork to prevent jams of product flowing through a cap.
Kahn teaches using tablets/pills/capsules/bulk powder/or granulated supplement (see paragraph [0002]) – Kah additionally teaches peg-type members (40, 42, additionally 136) (see Figs. 1-14). 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 Chu with that of Dwork and Kahn to prevent jams/or more than one of product flowing through a cap, as well as to allow for dispensing or multiple types of art recognized equivalent products as suggested by Kahn.
Further Re Claims 2 and 20:
Chu discloses wherein the dosage actuator (at 22) comprises a slider (22) coupled to the collector (21) that is configured to slide (by way of rotation which causes the member to slide along the tube) relative to the collection space (at 21) (see Fig. 5).
Re Claims 3 and 20:
Chu discloses wherein the volume of the collection space (at 21) is partially bounded by a moveable wall (28), the moveable wall (28) being connected to the slider (22) (see Fig. 8a).
Re Claim 4:Chu discloses wherein when the collector (21) is in the first configuration (see Fig. 3 - open), the collection space (at 21) is opened to an external environment to permit dispensing of the (product) in the collection space out of the tablet dispenser, and when the collector (21) is in the second configuration (see Fig. 3 – close), the collection space (21) is blocked from dispensing (product) in the collection space out of the tablet dispenser (see Fig. 4) (see col. 2 lines 35-52).
Re Claim 5:
Chu discloses wherein the collector (21) comprises a collector arm (21) pivotally mounted to the cap (11) (connected by way of cap 13 connection with cap 11), wherein the collector arm (21) is configured to pivot relative to the cap (11) between the first configuration and the second configuration (see Fig. 4) (see col. 2 lines 35-52).
Re Claim 13:
Chu discloses wherein the cap includes threads configured to engage with threads (see threads of Fig. 2 on container) of a tablet container, and the tablet distributor (at 11 – inner portion from lower inlet to upper outlet) is positioned above the threads of the tablet container (tablet distributor top height is above any threads located beneath) (see Fig. 2), but where if fails to specifically teach threads.
Dwork teaches wherein a cap includes threads configured to engage with threads of a tablet container (see Figs. 8 and 9). 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 Chu with that of Dwork to allow for a cap to connect to a container.
Re Claims 15 and 16:
Chu discloses a method of dispensing a (product) from a (product) dispenser, comprising: coupling a cap (11, 13) of the (product) dispenser (21) to a (product) container (3); the (product) dispenser including a collector (21) coupled to the cap (11, 13), and the cap (11, 13) including a (product) distributor (at 11 – inner portion from lower inlet to upper outlet) having an inlet, an outlet (16), setting a dosage (at 25) using a dosage actuator (at 22) to set a volume of a collection space (at 21) of the collector (21); moving the collector (21) from a first configuration in which fluid communication between the collection space (at 21) and the cap (11, 13) is closed to a second configuration in which fluid communication between the collection space (at 21) and the cap (11, 13) is open; tilting the (product) dispenser (21) while the (product) container (3) is attached to the (product) dispenser (21) to permit a (product) to move from the (product) container (3) through the pathway of the tablet distributor (at 11 – inner portion from lower inlet to upper outlet) to the collection space (at 21); and dispensing the (product) from the collection space (at 21) out of the (product) dispenser (21) (see Figs. 1-5), but fails to teach a plurality of spaced pegs positioned in a pathway between the inlet and the outlet.
Dwork teaches a tablet distributor (6) including a plurality of pegs (11) spaced positioned in a pathway (from inlet to outlet) between and inlet and an outlet (see Figs. 1-63). 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 Chu with that of Dwork to prevent jams of product flowing through a cap.
Kahn teaches using tablets/pills/capsules/bulk powder/or granulated supplement (see paragraph [0002]) – Kah additionally teaches peg-type members (40, 42, additionally 136) (see Figs. 1-14). 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 Chu with that of Dwork and Kahn to prevent jams/or more than one of product flowing through a cap, as well as to allow for dispensing or multiple types of art recognized equivalent products as suggested by Kahn.
Claim(s) 6, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn and further in view of Robert E. Hazard (US 3,863,818 – hereinafter Hazard).
Re Claims 6, 18, and 19:
Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn discloses the device of claim 5, but fails to teach a safety lock having a locked configuration and an unlocked configuration, wherein in the locked configuration, the safety lock prohibits pivoting of the collector arm relative to the cap, and in the unlocked configuration, the collector arm is free to pivot relative to the cap.
Hazard further in view teaches a safety lock (148) having a locked configuration (see Fig. 7) and an unlocked configuration (see Fig. 8), wherein in the locked configuration, the safety lock (148) prohibits pivoting of a collector arm (114) relative to a cap, and in the unlocked configuration, the collector arm (114) is free to pivot relative to the cap (see Figs. 1-8). Re Claim 18: Hazard further in view teaches wherein a moving step comprises rotating a collector (114) relative a cap of a (product) dispenser in a direction away from a (product) container to open fluid communication between the (product) container and a collection space (see Figs. 1-8). 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 Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn with that of Hazard to prevent unintended dispensing of product.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn and further in view of Coe et al. (US 2017/0011201 A1 – hereinafter Coe).
Re Claim 8:
Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach a dock configured to receive the tablet dispenser of claim 1 while the tablet dispenser is attached to a tablet container, the dock having a clamp that prevents removal of the tablet dispenser from the dock.
Coe further in view teaches a dock (100) configured to receive a dispenser of claim 1 while the dispenser is attached to a container (12), the dock (100) having a clamp (8) that prevents removal of the dispenser from the dock (100) (see Figs. 1-19C). 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 Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn with that of Coe in order to provide assistance to a user for organizing a product dispenser for use.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn and further in view of William K. Borsum (3,622,041 – hereinafter Borsum).
Re Claims 10 and 11:
Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of pegs include a first row of pegs and a second row of pegs, the first row of pegs being staggered relative to the second row of pegs.
Borsum further in view teaches wherein a plurality of pegs (79) include a first (long) row of pegs and a second (short) row of pegs, (79) the first (long) row of pegs being staggered relative to the second (short) row of pegs (see Figs. 9, see Figs. 1-27). Re Claim 11: Borsum further in view teaches wherein the plurality of pegs (79) form a Galton Board arrangement (staggered) (see Fig. 9). 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 Chu in view of Dwork and Kahns with that of Borsum in order to provide an arrangement suitable for preventing flow of product when a container is inserted.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn of Richard Zakhia (US 2023/0073935 A1– hereinafter Zakhia).
Re Claim 17:
Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn discloses the device of claim 15, but fails to specifically teach removing a tablet container cap from the tablet container prior to coupling the cap of the tablet dispenser to the tablet container.
Zakhia further in view teaches removing a (product) container cap (12) from a container prior to coupling a cap of a dispenser (20) to the container (see paragraph [0032]) 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 Chu in view of Dwork and Kahn with that of Zakhia to allow for transporting of a container prior to intended usage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 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.
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