DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-6, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe Indig (US 2006/0231566 A1 – hereinafter Indig).
Re Claim 1:
Indig discloses a candy dispenser for enabling a user to store and selectively dispense candies therefrom, the candy dispenser comprising: a housing (100) comprising a candy-housing compartment (102) (see Fig. 6), laterally opposed housing portions (108) (see Fig. 5), an upper housing portion (110), and a lower housing portion (113); a lever element (142) (see Fig. 8), the lever element (142) being displaceable relative to the upper housing portion (110) and the lower housing portion (113) (see Figs. 8-9c - lever element 142 is displaced in a vertical upwards and downwards direction); and a bucket element (104), the bucket element (104) being positioned adjacent the lower housing portion (113) and coupled to the lever element (142) (see Figs. 5-8), the bucket element (104) being pivotal about a first pivot axis (148) of rotation when the lever element (142) is displaced (see Figs. 9a-9b); the candy-housing compartment (102) being configured to receive and store at least a candy therewithin deliverable thereto via the upper housing portion (110); the lever element (142) being displaceable toward the lower housing portion (113) for pivoting the bucket element (104) about the first pivot axis (148) of rotation for selectively dispensing the candy from the bucket element (104) via the lower housing portion (113) (see Figs. 5-9c) (see Figs. 1-9c).
Re Claim 1:
Indig discloses a candy dispenser for enabling a user to store and selectively dispense candies therefrom, the candy dispenser comprising: a housing (10) comprising a candy-housing compartment (12) (see Fig. 1), laterally opposed housing portions (18) (see Fig. 1), an upper housing portion (20), and a lower housing portion (35); a lever element (56) (see Fig. 2), the lever element (56) being displaceable relative to the upper housing portion (20) and the lower housing portion (35) (see Fig. 2); and a bucket element (14), the bucket element (14) being positioned adjacent the lower housing portion (35) and coupled to the lever element (56) (see Figs. 2-3), the bucket element (14) being pivotal about a first pivot axis (near 36) of rotation when the lever element (56) is displaced (see Figs. 2-4); the candy-housing compartment (12) being configured to receive and store at least a candy therewithin deliverable thereto via the upper housing portion (20); the lever element (56) being displaceable toward the lower housing portion (35) for pivoting the bucket element (14) about the first pivot axis (near 36) of rotation for selectively dispensing the candy from the bucket element (14) via the lower housing portion (35) (see Figs. 1-4c) (see Figs. 1-9c).
Re Claim 2:
Indig discloses wherein the housing (100) comprises at least a first housing compartment (near 102) and a second housing compartment (near 136) (see Fig. 6), the first housing compartment (near 102) defining the candy-housing compartment and being separated from the second housing compartment (near 136) by an internal housing wall (see Examiner’s Drawing of Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Drawing of Fig. 6
Re Claim 3:
Indig discloses wherein the first housing compartment (near 102) comprises an internal housing ramp (112), the internal housing ramp (112) being obliquely angled relative to a longitudinal compartment axis of the first housing compartment (near 102) for guiding the candy into the bucket element (104) (see Fig. 9a).
Re Claim 4:
Indig discloses wherein the lever element (142) comprises an external button element (130), the external button element (130) being depressable by a user for displacing the lever element (142) toward the lower housing portion (113) (see Figs. 9a-9b).
Re Claim 5:
Indig discloses a compression spring (138) in communication with the external button element (130) (see Fig. 6), the compression spring (138) for returning the external button element (130) to a relaxed button position after the user releases the external button element (130) (see Figs. 6 and 9a-9b).
Re Claim 6:
Indig discloses wherein the second housing compartment (near 136) comprises an upper housing compartment (near 134) and a lower housing compartment (near 146) separated by an internal spring support wall (136) (see Fig. 6), the internal spring support wall (136) for supporting the compression spring (138) during depression of the external button element (130) (see Figs. 5-9c).
Re Claim 9:
Indig discloses a removable cap element (30, 116) and wherein the upper housing portion (110) comprises a candy-receiving opening configured to receive the candy, the removable cap element (116) being configured to removably cap the candy-receiving opening (see paragraph [0033]) (see Figs. 1-9c).
Re Claim 11:
Indig discloses wherein the lower housing portion (113) comprises a candy outlet (120), the candy outlet (120) being configured to dispense the candy therethrough when the lever element (142) is displaced toward the lower housing portion (113) (see Fig. 6).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indig in view of Willard H. Bristow (US 3,132,772 – hereinafter Bristow).
Re Claim 7:
Indig discloses wherein the external button element (130) comprises an upper button surface (outer wall surface), but fails to teach the upper button surface being obliquely angled relative to the internal spring support wall.
Bristow teaches an upper button surface (at 40) being obliquely angled relative to a spring support wall (14) (see Fig. 1 – see angle of top surface extending from top of 40, down to the left or the right side of 40). 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 Indig with that of Bristow to provide an alternative button/knob formation for allowing a user to engage, an obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes the combination would include an internal spring support wall as disclosed by Indig.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indig in view of Bristow, and further in view of Mario E. Bachmann (US 3,968,902 – hereinafter Bachmann).
Re Claim 8:
Indig in view of Bristow discloses the device of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the housing comprises a button lock element, the button lock element being configured to selectively prevent downward displacement of the lever element.
Bachmann further in view teaches wherein a housing (10) comprises a button lock element (22), the button lock element (22) being configured to selectively prevent downward displacement of the (button) (39) (see Figs. 1-11, see col. 5 lines 4-64). 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 Indig in view of Bristow with that of Bachmann to restrict a button from moving prior to a desired usage. Examiner notes that the combination would allow for preventing downward displacement of the lever element since the button of Indig would be restricted from movement.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indig in view of Christopher M. Bechyne (US 2014/0175110 A1 – hereinafter Bechyne).
Re Claim 10:
Indig discloses wherein a cap element (116) comprises external surfacing (see Figs. 1-9c), but fails to specifically teach external surfacing configured to at least enhance the visual appeal of or customize the candy dispenser.
Bechyne teaches external surfacing configured to at least enhance a visual appeal of or customize a dispenser (see paragraph [0044] – “brand name”). 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 Indig with that of Bechyne to identify to a consumer the maker of a product.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indig in view of William V. Sines (US 2,627,973 – hereinafter Sines).
Re Claim 12:
Indig discloses wherein at least a portion of the bucket element (104) (dispenses) when the lever element (142) is displaced toward the lower housing portion (113) (see Figs. 1-9c), but fails to teach wherein at least a portion of a bucket element is receivable through the candy outlet.
Sines teaches wherein at least a portion of a bucket element (44) is receivable through an outlet (42) (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 Indig with that of Sines to allow immediate access to product once dispensed when a device is used in a portable manner.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indig in view of Sines and further in view of Solanki et al. (US 2024/0124213 – hereinafter Solanki).
Re Claim 13:
Indig in view of Sines discloses wherein the bucket element (104) comprises a bottom bucket portion (see Indig Figs. 1-9c), but fails to specifically teach the bottom bucket portion being obliquely angled relative to the candy outlet for guiding the candy from the bucket element when in a fully pivoted state.
Solanki teaches a bottom bucket portion (205, 251, 253 – also top angled edge of 251) being obliquely angled relative to an outlet for guiding (product) from a bucket element (205) when in a fully pivoted state (see Fig. 5B, see Figs. 1-16E). 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 Indig in view of Sines with that of Solanki to assist in removal of product when a bucket member is in an opening position.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indig in view of Harris et al. (US 6,401,970 B1 – hereinafter Harris).
Re Claim 14:
Indig discloses the device of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the housing is configured to be ergonomically held by a user hand comprising an anterior housing exterior surface and a posterior housing exterior surface, the anterior housing surface comprising an array of ridge and trough formations for ergonomically receiving an array of user fingers as cupped thereat, the posterior housing surface for abutting a user thumb prominence such that a user opposable thumb may depress the external button element while the array of user fingers, as cupped at the anterior housing surface, direct the housing toward the thumb prominence thereby enabling the candy dispenser to be firmly secured within the user hand.
Harris teaches wherein a housing is configured to be ergonomically held by a user hand comprising an anterior housing exterior surface and a posterior housing exterior surface, the anterior housing surface comprising an array of ridge and trough formations (at 12) (see Fig. 1) for ergonomically receiving an array of user fingers as cupped thereat, the posterior housing surface for abutting a user thumb prominence such that a user opposable thumb may depress an external button element (17) while the array of user fingers, as cupped at the anterior housing surface, direct the housing toward the thumb prominence thereby enabling the candy dispenser to be firmly secured within the user hand (see Figs. 1-15). 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 Indig with that of Harris to allow for a device to be portable.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indig in view of Harris et al. (US 6,401,970 B1 – hereinafter Harris).
Re Claim 15:
Indig discloses the device of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the bucket element comprises laterally opposed bucket pin elements, the laterally opposed bucket pin elements extending laterally from the bucket element along the first pivot axis of rotation and being rotatably held at the laterally opposed housing portions.
Harris teaches wherein a bucket element (door) (22) comprises laterally opposed bucket pin elements (near 44, above), the laterally opposed bucket pin elements extending laterally from the bucket element along a first pivot axis of rotation and being rotatably held at the laterally opposed housing portions (see Figs. 1, bucket member is inside housing which connects to lever member outside of housing). 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 Indig with that of Harris to allow for an alternative means for actuating a rotating member.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indig in view of John Alfred Lundeen (US 2,527,749 – hereinafter Lundeen).
Re Claims 17-19:
Indig discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach an agitator element, the agitator element being coupled to the lever element and being displaceable when the lever element is displaced for agitating the candy.
Lundeen teaches an agitator element (17), the agitator element (17) being coupled to a lever element (12, 12a) and being displaceable when the lever element (12, 12a) is displaced for agitating the (product) (see Fig. 1). Re Claim 18: Lundeen teaches wherein the agitator element extends through at least one internal housing aperture (see lower aperture of member 9 near 9c) , said internal housing aperture being configured to guide (allow the agitator to be through) the agitator element when the lever element is displaced (see Fig. 1). Re Claim 19: Lundeen teaches wherein the agitator element (17) comprises a ridged exterior surface (see wing shaped portions) configured for enhancing agitation of the candy when the lever element is displaced (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 Indig with that of Lundeen to agitate product within a container during dispensing.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indig in view of Solanki.
Re Claim 20:
Indig discloses wherein the at least a portion of the housing is formed from a (transparent) material for enabling a user to see objects within the housing (see Figs. 1-9c), but fails to specifically teach translucent material.
Solanki teaches (transparent or translucent) (see paragraph [0042]). 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 Indig with that of Solanki to provide an alternative technique for allowing consumable products held therein to be visible to a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
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