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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallat II et al. (US 2013/0264358) in view of Pai (US 2018/0184857) and further in view of Seager (US 4,753,373).
With reference to claim 1, Fallat II et al. (hereinafter “Fallat”) discloses a dispenser device for administering a solid-state film composition (abstract), comprising:
a housing (figure 1) having an outlet (22,23);
a mechanism configured to advance the solid-state composition through an outlet of the housing [0054], wherein the mechanism is adjustable to dispense precise dosages of the solid-state film composition as set forth in [0058-0059].
The difference between Fallat and claim 1 is the provision that the device comprises processer with a user interface allowing users to select the dosage of solid-state film composition to be dispensed and a cutter.
Pai teaches an analogous oral care dispensing device that includes a user interface allowing users to make personal selections as set forth in [0081].
Pai also provides the device with a processor that is fully capable of being configured to allow the user interface to receive a dosage selection from a user and to to control operation of the device provide the solid-state film composition to a predetermined size corresponding to the dosage selection by the user as set forth in [0322-0329].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the dispenser of Fallat with a user interface as taught by Pai in order to provide a dental care system that is convenient to operate as taught by Pai in [0010].
The difference between Fallet modified and claim 1 is the explicit recitation that the device includes a cutter.
As previously set forth, Pai is concerned with providing exact, desired amounts oral care agents to the user based on user settings and/or preferences. See, [0328] of Pai for example.
Seager teaches an analogous dispenser utilizing a cutter to cut the toothpaste as set forth in col. 3, lines 55-64.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Fallet modified with a processor controlled cutter in order to allow for precise cutting of the dispensed toothpaste as taught by Seager in col. 3, lines 55-64 which is consistent with the teachings of Pai.
As to claim 2, Fallat discloses a dispenser device wherein the solid-state film composition comprises any one of a toothpaste formulation, or one or more dietary supplements configured for oral ingestion, or a skincare formulation for topical application, or a pharmaceutical formulation for medication delivery as set forth in [0002].
Regarding claim 4, Fallat discloses a dispenser device wherein the housing comprises a replaceable cartridge or film roll containing the solid-state film composition as set forth in [0050].
With respect to claim 6, Fallat discloses a dispenser device wherein the mechanism comprises a rotary gear system (52) for precise control of the solid-state composition dispensing as set forth in [0054].
As to claim 7, Fallat teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Fallat and claim 7 is the provision that the dispenser device further comprising a sensor system to detect the presence of the solid-state composition within the housing and provide feedback to the user interface for dosage adjustment.
Pai teaches an analogous oral care dispensing device that includes a sensor as set forth in [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Fallat with a sensor as taught by Pai in order to allow the device to provide the benefit of being hands-free and to automatically dispense the oral care agent as taught by Pai in [0021].
As to claim 9, Fallat discloses a dispenser device wherein the mechanism includes a plunger for controlled release of the solid-state composition as set forth in [0054].
The difference between Fallat and claim 9 is the provision that the plunger is a spring-loaded plunger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Fallat with a spring-loaded plunger as desired since the general provision of a plunger has already been set forth by the prior art and the substitution of one type of plunger for another is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 11, Fallat teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Fallat and claim 11 is the provision that the user interface comprises a touchscreen display for intuitive control and monitoring of dosage and composition selection.
Pai teaches an analogous oral care dispensing device wherein the user interface comprises a touchscreen display that includes a sensor as set forth in [0297].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the dispenser of Fallat with a touch screen as taught by Pai in order to provide a dental care system that is convenient to operate as taught by Pai in [0010].
As to claim 12, Fallat teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Fallat and claim 13 is the provision that the housing includes a compartment for storing additional cartridges of different solid-state compositions for easy interchangeability.
Pai teaches an analogous oral care dispensing device wherein the housing includes a compartment as set forth in [0307].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the housing of Fallat with a compartment as taught by Pai in order to store accessories as taught by Pai in [0307].
Regarding claim 17, Fallat teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Fallat and claim 17 is the provision that the device further comprises a dispenser trigger that is user operated.
Pai teaches an analogous oral care dispensing device including a dispenser trigger that is user operated as set forth in [0287].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Fallat with a dispenser trigger that is user operated as taught by Pai in order to allow the user to select the desired options as taught by Pai in [0287].
Claims 3, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallat II et al. (US 2013/0264358) in view of Pai (US 2018/0184857) and Seager (US 7,753,373) and further in view of Vanderwoude (US 2025/0194866).
With reference to claims 3 and 8, Fallat modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Fallat modified and claims 3 and 8 is the provision that the housing and mechanism are composed of materials non-reactive with the solid-state film composition (cl. 3) and/or of a UV-resistant material (cl. 8).
Vanderwoude teaches an analogous dispenser device composed of acrylic which is both non-reactive and UV resistant as set forth in [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Fallat modified with the material as taught by Vanderwoude in order to provide a heat-sealable plastic that is known in the art for use as a dispenser as taught by Vanderwoude in [0046].
With reference to claim 10, Fallat modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Fallat modified and claim 10 is the provision that the device further comprises a locking mechanism to prevent accidental dispensing of the solid-state composition.
Vanderwoude teaches an analogous dispenser device including a locking mechanism as set forth in [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Fallat modified with the locking mechanism as taught by Vanderwoude in order to allow for movement or cleaning of the device without triggering a release of toothpaste as taught by Vanderwoude in [0019].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallot II et al. (US 2013/0264358) in view of Pai (US 2018/0184857) and Seager (US 7,753,373) and further in view of Rubin et al. (US 2018/0303119).
With reference to claim 16, Fallat modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Fallat modified and claim 16 is the provision that the device includes a magnetic base comprising an adjustable arm or extension for accommodating various surfaces and angles.
Rubin et al. (hereinafter “Rubin) teaches an analogous dispenser device for dispensing toothpaste [0253] that includes a magnetic base [0244] comprising an adjustable arm or extension as set forth in [0018-0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Fallat modified with the magnetic base as taught by Rubin in order to mix the contents of the dispenser as needed as taught by Rubin in [0118].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-12 and 16-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights