DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (4,889,229 – hereinafter Yamamoto) in view of Yasuo Takagi (JP 2007084096 A – hereinafter Takagi) and JP 4108879 (JP 4108879 B2 – hereinafter JP-879).
Re Claims 1, and 3-5 and 7:
Yamamoto discloses a case comprising: a case body (12) including an accommodation space (28) to accommodate a plurality of components (61) and an opening (18) to accommodate discharge the plurality of components (61) in and from the accommodation space (28), the case body (12) including a structure (16) to have a label (17) attached thereto; and a shutter (25) slidable relative to the case body (12) to open and close the opening (18) by sliding (see col. 6 line 25 to col. 7 line 13) (see Figs. 1-20), but fails to teach wherein the case body includes, on at least a portion on a surface thereof, a label attaching region including a plurality of protruding portions to which an attaching surface of the label is attachable, the label attaching region further includes a plurality of recessed portions spaced apart from the attaching surface of the label and between adjacent ones of the plurality of protruding portions; a groove-shaped depression extends from the label attaching region over an outer side of a portion of the label attaching region that includes the plurality of protruding portions and the plurality of recessed portions; and in the portion of the label attaching region, the groove-shaped depression extends over at least one of the plurality of protruding portions and at least one of the plurality of recessed portions.
Takagi teaches wherein a case body (100) includes, on at least a portion on a surface (sidewall) thereof, a label attaching region (50) including a plurality of protruding portions (10) to which an attaching surface of a label (70) is attachable (see Figs. 1-8), the label attaching region (50) further includes a plurality of recessed portions (20) spaced apart from the attaching surface of the label (70) and between adjacent ones of the plurality of protruding portions (10). Re Claim 5: Takagi teaches wherein, in a surface of the label attaching region (50), a surface area (The perimeter of all of the protrusions combined) occupied by an entirety of the plurality of protruding portions (10) is larger than area occupied by an entirety of the plurality of recessed portions (the perimeter of all the inner recessed portions combined – inner perimeter as opposed to the outer perimeter of the protrusions) or an area (the empty rectangular border of 50) other than the area occupied by the plurality of protruding portions (50) (Examiner notes that one or the other of the scenarios may apply, or both scenarios may apply). Re Claim 7: Takagi teaches wherein each of the plurality of protruding portions (10) and the plurality of recessed portions (20) is a protruding portion (at 10) or a recessed portion including an embossed portion or a satin finished portion (Examiner notes that the protruding portion and recess portion is formed by a protruding portion, or Examiner notes that the structure is made from peaks and valleys as seen in Figs. 2 and 3 which shows an embossed portion – see www.merriam-webster.com Embossed: “ornamented with or having the form of a raised pattern, design, image, etc.” ). 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 Yamamoto, to include a label attaching region including a plurality of protruding portions to which an attaching surface of a label is attachable, as suggested by Takagi, to allow for easily removing a label, when a changing of the label may be needed.
JP-879 teaches a groove-shaped depression (25b) extends from a label attaching region over an outer side of a portion of the label attaching region that includes a plurality of protruding portions (24) and a plurality of recessed portions (23); and in a portion of the label attaching region, the groove-shaped depression (25b) extends over (blocks/separates/traverse) at least one of the plurality of protruding portions (24) and at least one of the plurality of recessed portions (23). 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 Yamamoto with that of Takagi and a groove-shaped depression, as suggested by Takagi, so that a finger may be able to be inserted between or underneath for assistance in placing/removing a label.
Further Re Claim 8:
Yamamoto discloses wherein the label (17) displays information relating to at least one selected from the plurality of components and the case (see col. 6 lines 56-61).
Further Re Claim 9:
Yamamoto discloses wherein each of the plurality of electronic components (61) has a rectangular or substantially rectangular shape (see Fig. 14).
Further Re Claim 11:
Yamamoto discloses wherein the case body (12) includes a first portion and a second portion bonded to each other (see col. 6 lines 36-42).
Further Re Claim 12:Yamamoto discloses wherein the case body (12) includes a sloped plate (29, 30, 31, 32, 33) (see Figs. 7, 8, and 13).
Re Claim 13:
Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879 discloses a slope angle of a sloped plated (see Figs. 7, 8, and 13 of Yamamoto), but does not disclose specific values for “wherein a slope angle of the sloped plate is about 3º or more and about 10º or less”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Claim 16:
Yammamto discloses wherein the case body includes claw portions (26 – legs 27 defining the portions which make up the claw) (see Fig. 8).
Re Claim 16:
Yamamoto discloses wherein the case body includes claw portions (at 21) (see Figs. 2-4 and 11) (Examiner notes that 21 must fit into grooves). It is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the components to where the case would comprise the grooves which would fit onto ribs, thus, the grooves on the case would comprise claws as seen in Fig. 13, when in reverse). In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Re Claim 17:
Yamamoto discloses a slider (19) to slide the shutter (25) (see Fig. 1).
Re Claim 18:
Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879 does not specifically disclose specific values for “wherein the plurality of protruding portions occupy a surface area of about 50% or more and about 90% or less of the label attaching region”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, and further in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2018/0037418 A1 – hereinafter Nakajima).
Re Claim 10:
Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879 discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein each of the plurality of electronic components has a length of about 1.2 mm or less.
Nakajima further in view teaches wherein each of a plurality of electronic components has a length of about 1.2 mm or less (see paragraph [0045]). 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 Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, to include a plurality of electronic components having a length of about 1.2 mm or less, as suggested by Nakajima, to use the most optimal sized product for a dispensing device, so that the device may function properly, as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, and further in view of Peter Dronzek (US 7,892,598 B1 – hereinafter Dronzek).
Re Claim 14:
Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the case body includes an RFID tag.
Dronzek further in view teaches wherein a case body includes an RFID tag (see col. 4 lines 1-27). 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 Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, to include a an RFID tag, as suggested by Dronzek, to use the most optimal sized product for a dispensing device, so that the device may be able to be used with an convention RFID reader or other electronic managing device for identifying a container or the contents within.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, and further in view of Yang Li (US 2019/0092557 A1 – hereinafter Li).
Re Claim 15:
Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, discloses the device of claim 1, including where the case body comprises rear grip portions (21) (see Figs. 2-4 of Yamamoto), but fails to teach wherein the case body includes upper grip portions.
Li further in view teaches wherein a case body includes upper grip portions (38) (see Figs. 1-3A). 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 Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, to include upper grip portions, as suggested by Li, to enhance a user’s grip of a device.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, and further in view of Saito et al. (US 2003/0178438 A1 – hereinafter Saito).
Re Claim 19:
Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of components is a capacitor or an inductor.
Saito further in view teaches wherein each of the plurality of components is a capacitor or an inductor (see paragraph [0121]). 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 Yamamoto in view of Takagi and JP-879, with that of Saito to provide a particular type of product to be dispensed as known within the art.
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
Prosecution Insights