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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2014/0346184 A1 – hereinafter Bae).
Re Claim 1:
Bae discloses a container (110) for holding a pre-prepared strip of serially connected pill packets (10), each packet (10) containing at least one medication (see Fig. 4), the container (110) comprising: a housing (113) having plural walls defining a space (111) to receive the strip of pill packets (10) (see Fig. 4); a lid (116) secured to the housing (113), the lid (116) being movable between open and closed positions (see Figs. 3 and 4), the space (111) being accessible when the lid (116) is in the open position (see Fig. 4); a dispensing portal (112) disposed at a predetermined position of the housing (113), the strip of pill packets (10) being dispensable through the dispensing portal (112); and a guiding mechanism (154, 155, 155a) interconnected with the lid (116), the guiding mechanism (154, 155, 155a) engaging the strip of pill packets (10) when the strip of pill packets (10) is disposed in the space (111) and aligned in the dispensing portal (112) and the lid (116) is moved to the closed position (see Figs. 3 and 4) (see Figs. 1-13).
Re Claim 4:
Bae discloses wherein the guiding mechanism (154, 155, 155a) comprises a pair of rollers ((154, 155, 155a)/152) (see Fig. 6), the pair of rollers ((154, 155, 155a)/152) including a first roller (154, 155, 155a) disposed on the lid (116) and a second roller (152) connected to the housing (113) (see Fig. 4), the first roller (154, 155, 155a) and the second roller (152) contacting the strip of pill packets (10) when the lid (116) is in the closed position and the strip of pill packets (10) is aligned in the dispensing portal (112) (see Figs. 4-6).
Re Claim 5:
Bae discloses a flap (331) connected to a housing adjacent a dispensing portal, the flap (331) being movable between a dispensing position (see Fig. 11) and a closed position, the flap (331) closing access to the dispensing portal when in the closed position (see Fig. 11).
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) 2, 3, 9, 10, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Tignanelli et al. (US 2021/0177703 A1 – hereinafter Tignanelli).
Re Claims 2 and 3:
Bae discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the guiding mechanism is interconnected with a sensor, the sensor detecting movement of the strip of pill packets as the strip is drawn through the dispensing portal.
Tignanelli teaches wherein a guiding mechanism (32, 34, 36) is interconnected with a sensor (70), the sensor (70) detecting movement of a strip of (medication) as the strip is drawn through a dispensing portal (see paragraphs [0072-0079]). 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 Bae with that of Tignanelli, to provide position feedback as a function of the position of a medication strip.
Re Claims 9 and 10:
Bae discloses a method of using a container (110) for holding a pre-prepared strip of serially connected pill packets (10), each containing at least one medication (see Fig. 4), the container (110) comprising a housing (113) having plural walls defining a space (111) to receive the strip of pill packets (10), a dispensing portal (112) disposed at a predetermined position of the housing (113), the strip of pill packets (10) being dispensable through the dispensing portal (112) (see Fig. 3) (see Figs. 1-13), but fails to teach at least one sensor, the method comprising: sensing whether a length of the strip of pill packets has been drawn through the dispensing portal; and storing or transmitting information regarding the length of the strip of pill packets having been drawn through the dispensing portal.
Tignanelli teaches at least one sensor (70), a method comprising: sensing whether a length of a strip of (medications) has been drawn through a dispensing portal (see paragraphs [0072-0079]); and storing or transmitting information regarding the length (position feedback signal as a function of the position of the medication strip) of the strip of pill packets having been drawn through the dispensing portal (see paragraphs [0072-0079]) (see Figs. 1-7). Re Claim 10: Tignanelli teaches wherein the sensor (70) detects movement of the strip of pill packets into and out of the dispensing portal (Examiner notes the sensor is capable of detecting the rotary motion of the dispensing device, the strip moves when the rotary motion moves, thus, the sensor can detect the function of into and out of a dispensing portal) (see paragraphs [0072-0079]) (see Figs. 1-7). 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 Bae with that of Tignanelli, to provide position feedback as a function of the position of a medication strip.
Re Claims 14-16 and 18:
Bae discloses a system for dispensing a pre-prepared strip of serially connected pill packets (10), each packet (10) containing at least one medication (see Fig. 4), the system comprising: a container (110) for holding the pre-prepared strip of serially connected pill packets (10), the container (110) including a housing (113) defining a space (111) to receive the strip of pill packets (10) (see Fig. 4), a dispensing portal (112) disposed in the housing (113) (see Fig. 3), the strip of pill packets (10) being dispensable through the dispensing portal (112), a guiding mechanism (154, 155, 155a) engaging the strip of pill packets (10) when the strip of pill packets (10) is disposed in the space (111) with a leading end of the strip (10) aligned in the dispensing portal (112) (see Figs. 3 and 4), a flap (331) selectively covering the dispensing portal (see Figs. 1-13), but fails to teach at least one sensor for sensing a component of the container, a controller in communication with the at least one sensor, and a communication module connected to the controller; a control portal in communication with the controller, wherein the controller and control portal control at least one of determining when a packet is to be dispensed from the container, monitoring whether the strip of pill packets has moved through the dispensing portal, determining the distance the strip of pill packets has moved through the dispensing portal, monitoring whether the flap has been moved, or transmitting to the control portal information regarding the container or any components of the container.
Tignanelli teaches at least one sensor (70) for sensing a component (32, 34, 36) of a container (10), a controller (40, 42, 44, 66) in communication with the at least one sensor (70), and a communication module (LED or LCD display, transducer) connected to the controller (40, 42, 44, 66); a control portal (40, 42, 44, 66) in communication with the controller (40, 42, 44, 66), wherein the controller (40, 42, 44, 66) and control portal (40, 42, 44, 66) control at least one of determining when a packet is to be dispensed from the container (see paragraph [0061]), monitoring whether the strip of pill packets has moved through the dispensing portal (see paragraphs [0078-0079]), determining the distance the strip of pill packets has moved through the dispensing portal, monitoring whether the flap has been moved, or transmitting to the control portal information regarding the container or any components of the container (see paragraphs [0060-0079]) (see Figs. 1-7) (see paragraph [0080 – reverse direction). 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 Bae with that of Tignanelli, to provide position feedback as a function of the position of a medication strip, while also improving medication adherence.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Hagglund et al. (US 2013/0334273 A1 – hereinafter Hagglund).
Re Claim 6:
Bae discloses the device of claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the flap includes a cutting edge for cutting a leading pill packet from the strip of pill packets after the leading pill packet is drawn through the dispensing portal, the cutting edge being usable when the flap is in the dispensing position.
Hagglund teaches wherein a flap (312) includes a cutting edge (316, 318) for cutting a leading (product) from a strip of (products) after the leading (product) is drawn through a dispensing portal (310), the cutting edge (316, 318) being usable when the flap is in a the dispensing position (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 Bae with that of Hagglund, to provide a cutter on a movebale door, so as to protect the contents of a container when not in use, while also allowing for the function of cutting when the device is in use.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Shavelsky et al. (US 9,211,233 B2 – hereinafter Shavelsky).
Re Claim 7:
Bae discloses the device of claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the flap is associated with a flap sensor that senses when the flap is moved between the closed position and the dispensing position.
Shavelsky teaches wherein a flap is associated with a flap sensor that senses when the flap is moved between a closed position and a dispensing position (see Abstract, see col. 14 lines 5-15). 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 Bae with that of Shavelsky, to determine when a product has been accessed/dispensed by way of sensing the opening or closing of a of cover-type member.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Strub et al. (US 2008/0190952 A1 – hereinafter Strub).
Re Claim 8:
Bae discloses wherein the strip of pill packets (10) is stored in a (packaging) (142) and the (packaging) (142) is insertable in the space (111) in the housing (113) (see Figs. 1-13), but fails to teach wherein the strip of pill packets is stored in a box.
Strub teaches wherein a strip of pill packets is stored in a box (20) (see Fig. 1). 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 Bae with that of Strub to allow for an alternative arrangement in which the product is protected within an inner container as shown by Strub.
Further Re Claim 13:
Bae discloses signaling via a device on the container timing regarding when to dispense one of the pill packets (see paragraphs [0024], [0088]).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Tignanelli and further in view of Shavelsky.
Re Claims 11 and 19:
Bae in view of Tignanelli discloses wherein the container further comprises a flap (331) adjacent a dispensing portal, the flap being movable between a dispensing position and a closed position (see Fig. 11 of Bae), but fails to teach and another sensor for sensing the position of the flap, the flap closing access to the dispensing portal when in the closed position, wherein the method comprises monitoring the position of the flap.
Shavelsky further in view teaches another sensor for sensing the position of a flap, the flap closing access to a dispensing portal when in a closed position, wherein the method comprises monitoring the position of the flap (see Abstract, see col. 14 lines 5-15). 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 Bae in view of Tignanelli with that of Shavelsky, to determine when a product has been accessed/dispensed by way of sensing the opening or closing of a of cover-type member.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Tignanelli and Shavelsky and further in view of Hagglund.
Re Claim 12:
Bae in view of Tignanelli and Shavelsky discloses the device of claim 5, but fails to teach selectively controlling locking and unlocking of the flap in the closed position.
Hagglund further in view selectively controlling locking and unlocking of a flap (312) in a closed position (see paragraph [0024], 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 Bae in view of Tignanelli and Shavelsky with that of Hagglund, to provide a cutter on a movebale door, so as to protect the contents of a container when not in use, and assure that the door remains closed when not in use.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Tignanelli and further in view of Carlos de la Huerga (US 7,715,277 B2 – hereinafter Huerga).
Re Claim 17:
Bae in view of Tignanelli discloses the device of claim 14, but fails to teach a locking mechanism on the container for locking the flap, the controller selectively controlling locking and unlocking of the flap in the closed position.
Huerga further in view teaches a locking mechanism (837, 846) on the container for locking a flap (835), the controller selectively controlling locking and unlocking of the flap in the closed position (see col. 30 line 55 to col. 31 line 10). 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 Bae in view of Tignanelli with that of Huerga, to control access to a device.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Tignanelli and further in view of Strub et al. (US 2008/0190952 A1 – hereinafter Strub).
Re Claim 20:
Bae in view of Tignanelli discloses wherein the strip of pill packets (10) is stored in a (packaging) (142) and the (packaging) (142) is insertable in the space (111) in the housing (113) (see Figs 1-3 of Bae), but fails to teach wherein the strip of pill packets is stored in a box.
Strub teaches wherein a strip of pill packets is stored in a box (20) (see Fig. 1). 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 Bae in view of Tignanelli with that of Strub to allow for an alternative arrangement in which the product is protected within an inner container as shown by Strub.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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