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’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 20 and their dependent claims under Palmer/Wilson/Poutiatine have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Palmer/Wilson in view of Patel US 2021/0327201.
Applicant amended the independent claims removing the subject matter rejected by Poutiatine and replacing it with subject matter discloses by Patel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,3-5,7,9-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 and 20 were amended to include receiving at the point of sale, an Support for these features could not be found in the specification or drawings. The terms ‘authentication signal’, ‘external device’, ‘time window’, and ’reactivation’ were not found in applicant’s specification or drawings. To overcome this rejection please point to where each limitation is supported by the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,3-5,7,9-15 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 20 recite the limitation "the point of sale". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1,3,5,7,9,10,12-15,18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al. US 8,499,966 in view of Wilson et al. US 2019/0062038 and Patel US 2021/0327201.
Palmer discloses an apparatus for oral nicotine dispensing, wherein the apparatus comprises:
(Re claim 1) “a body … the body has an exterior surface” (11 figure 1A), “wherein the body configured to hold at least a pod of a plurality of pods” (15,17 figure 1C). “a fingerprint scanner coupled to the body, wherein the fingerprint scanner is configured to authenticate a user” (col 22 lines 45-64). “a locking mechanism coupled to the fingerprint scanner, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to allow authorized access to the at least a pod” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39). “a button mounted on the exterior surface … pushed by a user” (23 figure 1D,1E). “a drive mechanism, wherein the drive mechanism dispenses the at least a pod upon successful authentication and detection that the button …” (col 22 lines 45-64, 51 figure 2, 23 figure 1D,1E, col 48 lines 20-36). “a display coupled to the body” (col 25 lines 3-11, col 30 lines 6-10, col 46 lines 47-56). “a magazine fastened to the body and coupled with the drive mechanism, wherein the magazine is configured to store the plurality of pods” (17 figure 2). “the magazine configured to guide, using the drive mechanism, the at least a pod into a dispensing position” (51,43 figure 2). “the magazine includes a locking mechanism configured to prevent rejection of the plurality of pods when the magazine is not fastened to the body” (‘seal … door or valve’, non-re-sealable seal that is broken when it is loaded into the drug dispensing device, col 20 lines 34-48). “the magazine includes a … chip, and the dispenser is configured to receive product details from the … chip and display the product details on the display” (col 25 lines 3-11, col 30 lines 6-10, col 46 lines 47-56). “an aperture located on the body, wherein the aperture is configured to allow the at least a pod to move from within the magazine to exterior environment” (29 figure 2).
Palmer discloses dispensing other kinds of drugs and dispensing nicotine, but does not explicitly disclose dispensing nicotine form the dispenser (page 5 col 1 ‘nicotine tablet, page 5 col 2 ‘nicotine sublingual tablet’). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include dispensing nicotine pods as this expands the market for the dispenser of Palmer and provides a safe means for dispensing an addictive substance.
Palmer does not disclose using NFC chips nor that at the point of sale, an authentication signal from an external device and a time window; the apparatus is configured to determine that a user has not been authenticated within the time window after receiving the authentication signal; and the apparatus is configured to lock the locking mechanism until reactivation at the point of sale
Wilson teaches using NFC chips (para 0087).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include the use of NFC chips because it is a suitable wireless protocol and its limited range increases the security of the chip.
Patel discloses at the point of sale, an authentication signal from an external device and a time window (‘retailer machine’ para 0123, ‘predetermined amount of time’ para 0142); “the apparatus is configured to determine that a user has not been authenticated within the time window after receiving the authentication signal” (‘communication to unlock’ para 0120); and the apparatus is configured to lock the locking mechanism until reactivation at the point of sale (para 0142). The purchaser can return to the clerk at any time to for reactivation if the device is locked.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include that at the point of sale, an authentication signal from an external device and a time window; the apparatus is configured to determine that a user has not been authenticated within the time window after receiving the authentication signal; and the apparatus is configured to lock the locking mechanism until reactivation at the point of sale because it helps prevent unauthorized dispensing of a controlled substance.
(Re claim 3) “the button is located on a front surface of the body” (23 figure 1D, 1E).
(Re claim 5) “body comprises a cuboid shape” (11 figure 1).
(Re claim 7) “the magazine is further configured to be removed from the body and refilled with a replacement magazine” (17 figure 1C).
(Re claim 9) “at least a motor, at least a spring, at least a power source, and at least a circuit board” (col 21-22 lines 54-8, 73 figure 6, col 24 lines 52-54, col 28 lines 22-33).
(Re claim 10) “at least a power source comprises at least a battery configured to power the apparatus” (col 24 lines 52-54, col 28 lines 22-33).
(Re claim 12) “the drive mechanism comprises at least a spring, wherein the at least a spring is configured to be loaded with the magazine” (claim 9).
(Re claim 13) “the drive mechanism comprises at least a near field communication chip configured to lock and unlock the apparatus” (col 23 lines 10-47).
(Re claim 14) “the drive mechanism is configured to utilize one or more of at least a solenoid and at least a shape memory allow actuator” (col 8 lines 32-41).
(Re claim 15) “the display is further configured to provide an indication of a charge level of the apparatus” (‘battery status’ col 30 lines 6-10). Any information displayed on the dock could also be displayed on the display of the dispenser.
(Re claim 18) “the fingerprint scanner comprises one or more of: a visual indicator, a tactile indicator, and an audio indicator” (col 25 lines 3-24).
Palmer discloses a method for oral nicotine dispensing, the method comprising:
(Re claim 20) “storing a plurality of a pods in a magazine within a body, the body having an exterior surface and a button mounted on the exterior surface” (17 figure 2, 23 figure 1D,1E). “receiving a fingerprint scan from a user via a fingerprint scanner coupled to the body; authenticating the fingerprint scan” (col 22 lines 46-64). “de-activating a locking mechanism to allow access to at least a pod upon successful authentication of the fingerprint scan” (col 22 lines 46-64, col 3 lines 10-15). “de-activating a locking mechanism of the magazine” (‘seal … door or valve’, non-re-sealable seal that is broken when it is loaded into the drug dispensing device, col 20 lines 34-48). “receiving product details from … the magazine, displaying the product details on a display coupled to the body” (col 25 lines 3-11, col 30 lines 6-10, col 46 lines 47-56). “detecting that the button … dispensing, using at least a drive mechanism, the at least a pod from the magazine through an opening of the body, based on the detection” (col 2 lines 50-54, 23 figure 1D,1E, col 48 lines 20-36).
Palmer discloses dispensing other kinds of drugs and dispensing nicotine, but does not explicitly disclose dispensing nicotine form the dispenser (page 5 col 1 ‘nicotine tablet, page 5 col 2 ‘nicotine sublingual tablet’). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include dispensing nicotine pods as this expands the market for the dispenser of Palmer and provides a safe means for dispensing an addictive substance.
Palmer does not disclose using NFC chips nor that at the point of sale, an authentication signal from an external device and a time window; the apparatus is configured to determine that a user has not been authenticated within the time window after receiving the authentication signal; and the apparatus is configured to lock the locking mechanism until reactivation at the point of sale
Wilson teaches using NFC chips (para 0087).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include the use of NFC chips because it is a suitable wireless protocol and its limited range increases the security of the chip.
Patel discloses at the point of sale, an authentication signal from an external device and a time window (‘retailer machine’ para 0123, ‘predetermined amount of time’ para 0142); “the apparatus is configured to determine that a user has not been authenticated within the time window after receiving the authentication signal” (‘communication to unlock’ para 0120); and the apparatus is configured to lock the locking mechanism until reactivation at the point of sale (para 0142). The purchaser can return to the clerk at any time to for reactivation if the device is locked.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include that at the point of sale, an authentication signal from an external device and a time window; the apparatus is configured to determine that a user has not been authenticated within the time window after receiving the authentication signal; and the apparatus is configured to lock the locking mechanism until reactivation at the point of sale because it helps prevent unauthorized dispensing of a controlled substance.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer/Wilson/Patel in view of Tignanelli et al. US 11,357,705.
Palmer discloses the system as rejected above.
Palmer does not disclose that the fingerprint scanner is integrated into the button.
Tignanelli teaches that the fingerprint scanner is integrated into the button (51,53 figure 4,5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include that the fingerprint scanner is integrated into the button because it streamlines the interaction with the dispenser by allowing the user to authenticate their identity and dispense the stored items in a single movement.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer/Wilson/Patel in view of Ritson US 2005/0199023
Palmer discloses the system as rejected above.
Palmer does not disclose that the at least a power source comprises at least a piezoelectric hammer starter configured to power the apparatus.
Ritson teaches that the at least a power source comprises at least a piezoelectric hammer starter configured to power the apparatus (para 0013-0014).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include a power source comprises at least a piezoelectric hammer starter configured to power the apparatus because it can remove the need for a battery or charging device.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer/Wilson/Patel in view of Edwards et al. US 2013/0327327.
Palmer discloses the system as rejected above.
Palmer does not disclose that the magazine is composed of biodegradable material.
Edwards teaches that the magazine is composed of biodegradable material (para 0009).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include that the magazine is composed of biodegradable material because it reduces the environmental impact of the disposable magazines.
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 TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights