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 element 40 of Pourian depicted in figure 5 is not a clip and does not secure the sachet when pulled through the slot on the first support surfaces.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. Element 40 of Pourian, which was called a tear member for dispenser 10 does function to separate the dispensed article G from the sachet 12. However, as depicted in the figure below, element 9 is a hook that facilitates the tearing/removal of a plastic bag from the rolls. It is apparent from the figure that if the user’s hand was removed and does not tear the plastic bag instantaneously, the plastic bag would be secured to the hook. The same logic has been employed using the Pourian reference. Element G of sachet 12 would be secured if the user does not tear element G from the roll 12. Therefore, element 40 of Pourian can be construed as a clip that secures the sachet when it’s pulled through the slot using the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim limitation in question is very broad.
PNG
media_image1.png
471
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the mere duplication rationale employed in the rejection of claim 12 is not applicable.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The Applicant’s invention recited “wherein the body comprises clips at the first and second support surfaces arranged to secure the sachet when pulled through the slot on either the first or the second support surfaces”. This claim limitation is merely the placement of a plurality of clips on two support surfaces of the dispenser when the sachet is pulled out from either of the first or second support surfaces. Hence, the duplication rationale is very applicable to this claim limitation and has been upheld in the present office action. The Examiner is not persuaded by the Applicant’s argument.
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 12-19,22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POURIAN et al.
(WO 2011119564).
Claim 12, Pourian discloses a medicine dispenser dispensing sachets of medicine, the medicine
dispenser comprising: a body forming a cavity for receiving a roll of sachets (16); a slot (20) within the
body, the slot being positioned for throughput of sachets of the roll of sachets, wherein the roll of the
sachets rotates within the cavity when a sachet is pulled through the slot out of the body (fig.3); and
first (18') and second (18") support surfaces on the body facing away from the body for supporting the
sachet after the sachet has been pulled through the slot (figs.2-5), the first and second support surfaces
being positioned adjacent and along the slot (20) such that the slot is located between the first and
second support surfaces, wherein, dependent on an orientation of the medicine dispenser relative to a
direction of gravity, the sachet when pulled through the slot (20) is supportable by the first support
surface (18') or substantially equally supportable by the second support surface (18") and either a first
side or an opposite second side of the sachet faces away from the body (see figures); wherein the body comprises a clip (40; fig.5) at the first (18') support surface arranged to secure the sachet when pulled through the slot (20) on the first support surfaces (18').
Although Pourian does not disclose wherein the body comprises clips at the first and second
support surfaces arranged to secure the sachet when pulled through the slot on either the first or the
second support surfaces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to implement an additional clip on the second support surface, since it has been
held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 13, Pourian discloses wherein the medicine dispenser comprises a roll of the sachets of
medicine (12; fig.19), the sachets comprising labels [(fig.19; 12; this limitation fails to further structurally
limit the apparatus claim and only further limit the material handled by the apparatus and therefore
does not determine patentability (see at least MPEP 2114,2115))] identifying a content of the sachets,
the labels being located either on a first side or on the opposite second side of the sachets, wherein a
sachet of medicine has been pulled through the slot (20) out of the body and is supported by either the
first support surface (18') or the second support surface (18"), wherein either the first support surface
or the second support surface is chosen so that the label on the sachet is facing away from the body of
the dispenser and can be conveniently identified.
Claim 14, Pourian discloses wherein the first (18') and second (18") support surfaces are located
on a common plane (fig.5).
Claim 15, Pourian discloses wherein the first (18') and second (18") support surfaces are planar.
Claim 16, Pourian discloses wherein the first (18') and second (18") support surfaces are non-
curved.
Although Pourian does not disclose wherein the first and second support surfaces are curved, it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
implement curved support surfaces 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).
Claim 17, Pourian discloses wherein the first (18') and second (18") support surfaces are located
immediately adjacent the slot (20).
Claim 18, Pourian discloses wherein the first (18') and second (18") support surfaces have
substantially the same extension and shape.
Claim 19, Pourian discloses wherein the body has an axis which substantially coincides with an
axis of the roll of sachets (12) when loaded into the dispenser, wherein the slot (20) has an axis and
wherein the first (18') and second (18") support surfaces are symmetrical relative to a plane of
symmetry defined by the axis of the body and an axis of the slot (20).
Claim 22, in another embodiment, Pourian discloses wherein the body comprises two halves
(fig.6), which are separable to load a roll of the sachets and which comprise a snap-fit (132) arranged to
engage the two halves to each other such that the body is closed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the embodiment of Pourian fig.5 with wherein the body comprises two halves because it's a very well-known dispenser embodiment in the art and merely
provides another container for dispensing sachets.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POURIAN et al. (WO 2011119564) in view of Swinney (US 2016/0175066).
Claim 13, Pourian wherein the medicine dispenser comprises a roll of the sachets of medicine
(see figures); a slot (20) within the body, the slot being positioned for throughput of sachets of the roll
of sachets, wherein the roll of the sachets rotates within the cavity when a sachet is pulled through the
slot out of the body (fig.3); and first (18') and second (18") support surfaces.
Pourian does not disclose the sachets comprising labels identifying a content of the sachets, the
labels being located either on a first side or on the opposite second side of the sachets, wherein a sachet
of medicine has been pulled through the slot out of the body and is supported by either the first support
surface or the second support surface, wherein either the first support surface or the second support
surface is chosen so that the label on the sachet is facing away from the body of the dispenser and can
be conveniently identified.
Swinney discloses the sachets comprising labels identifying a content of the sachets (para.0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Pourian
with the sachets comprising labels identifying a content of the sachets, the labels being located either
on a first side or on the opposite second side of the sachets, wherein a sachet of medicine has been
pulled through the slot out of the body and is supported by either the first support surface or the second support surface, wherein either the first support surface or the second support surface is chosen so that the label on the sachet is facing away from the body of the dispenser and can be conveniently identified because it's a very well-known configuration in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POURIAN et al.
(WO 2011119564) in view of Gelardi et al. (US 2011/0204074).
Claim 21, Pourian does not disclose wherein the body is at least partially transparent.
Gelardi discloses wherein the body is at least partially transparent (para.0076). Therefore, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Pourian with
wherein the body is at least partially transparent such that the number of units of products remaining in
the internal storage compartment can be determined.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POURIAN et al.
(WO 2011119564) in view of Wichmann (US 2013/0213992).
Claim 23, Pourian discloses wherein the body has a base portion (fig.1; horizontal & vertical back
portion of 10) positioned opposite the first (18') and second (18") support surfaces.
Pourian does not disclose the base portion being arranged for mounting on the wall of a building
or structure whereby the first and second support surfaces face away from the wall of the building or
structure when the dispenser is mounted on the wall of the building or structure.
Wichmann discloses the base portion (7) being arranged for mounting on the wall of a building
or structure whereby the first (3) and second (6) support surfaces face away from the wall of the
building or structure when the dispenser is mounted on the wall of the building or structure. Therefore,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Pourian with the
base portion being arranged for mounting on the wall of a building or structure whereby the first and
second support surfaces face away from the wall of the building or structure when the dispenser is
mounted on the wall of the building or structure simply to enable the dispensing container to be
mounted onto a wall or vertical surface, which is a very well-known configuration in the dispensing art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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