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 Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 of the claim, includes the limitation “a motor that rotates” which should be written as –a motor that is configured to rotate--.
Claim 1, line 7 of the claim, includes the limitation “an actuator that increases” which should be written as –an actuator that is configured to increase--.
Claim 5, line 3 of the claim, includes the limitation “a catch that retains the lid closed” which should be written as – a catch that is configured to retain the lid closed--.
Claim 5, line 6 of the claim, includes the limitation “a spring that maintains” which should be rewritten as --a spring that is configured to maintain--.
Claim 7, line 4 of the claim, includes the limitation “the dish engages with the” which should read --the dish is configured to engage with the--.
Claim 7, line 6 of the claim, includes the limitation “a lid of the pill-crushing machine engages with” which should be rewritten as --a lid of the pill-crushing machine is configured to engaged with--.
Claim 10, line 8 of the claim, include the limitation “tie bars prevent” which should be rewritten as --tie bars configured to prevent--.
Claim 13, line 4 of the claim, includes the limitation “a lid cover that exposes” which should be rewritten as --a lid cover that is configured to expose--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 109512676).
Re Claim 1, Zhang discloses a pill-crushing machine comprising:
a dish (grinding pot 20) that is rotatable about its axis (“When the switch of the drive motor 6 is turned on, the drive motor 6 rotates and drives the grinding pot 20 to rotate” [0027]), translatable up and down (“When the switch of the first hydraulic cylinder 17 is turned on, the first hydraulic cylinder 17 moves so that the hexagonal block 19 at the lower end of the grinding pot 20 is located in the hexagonal groove at the upper end of the connector 18.” [0027]), and biased upwards (Fig. 1 shows the grinding pot 20 is supported upward by first hydraulic cylinder 17);
a punch (fixing plate 25) that is movable from a first position outside the dish to a second position inside the dish (“A fixing plate 25 is fixedly connected to the telescopic end of the second hydraulic cylinder 22” [0027], when the telescopic arm is extended, the fixing plate is inside the grinding pot and when the telescopic arm is retracted the fixing plate is above the grinding pot.);
a motor (drive motor 6) that rotates the dish when the punch is in the second position (“When the switch of the drive motor 6 is turned on, the drive motor 6 rotates and drives the grinding pot 20 to rotate” [0027]); and
an actuator (first hydraulic cylinder 17) that increases an upward force on the dish when the punch is in the second position ([0029]; the first hydraulic cylinders 17 raise and lower the grinding pot 20, when the first hydraulic cylinder is raising the grinding pot it is increasing the upward force of the dish and the first hydraulic cylinder is capable of raising the grinding pot when the fixing plate is in the second position).
Re Claim 8, Zhang discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses a table (connector 18) in which the dish (grinding pot 20 including hexagonal block 19) is mounted (“A connector 18 is fixedly connected to the end of the output shaft of the drive motor 6. The upper end of the connector 18 is provided with a hexagonal groove that cooperates with the hexagonal block 19. When the switch of the first hydraulic cylinder 17 is turned on, the first hydraulic cylinder 17 moves so that the hexagonal block 19 at the lower end of the grinding pot 20 is located in the hexagonal groove at the upper end of the connector 18” [0027]), wherein the motor rotates the table to rotate the dish (“A hexagonal block 19 is fixedly connected to the lower end of the grinding pot 20. A fixing frame 5 is also present. A drive motor 6 is fixedly connected to the upper end of the grinding pot 20. When the switch of the drive motor 6 is turned on, the drive motor 6 rotates and drives the grinding pot 20 to rotate. The rotation of the grinding pot 20 causes the granular medicine to rub against the grinding particles 3, thereby grinding the medicine particles into powder. A connector 18 is fixedly connected to the end of the output shaft of the drive motor 6. The upper end of the connector 18 is provided with a hexagonal groove that cooperates with the hexagonal block 19” [0027]); and one or more bearings upon which the table is mounted (“end of the output shaft” [0027]); wherein the dish is removable (“A pin 30 is inserted through the upper end of the annular plate 21. After the medicine is crushed into small particles, the pin 30 is pulled, and the pin 30 disengages from the slot. The upper end of the slider 29 has a slot that matches the pin” [0027] and “Two sliders 29 are slidably connected in the annular groove. A grinding pot 20 is fixedly connected between the two sliders 29” [0027]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hohl et al. (US2014/0217221), hereinafter referred to as Hohl.
Re Claim 2, Zhang discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but Zhang fails to disclose one or more springs that bias the dish upwards.
Hohl teaches a pill crushing machine further comprising one or more springs that bias the dish upwards (“Spring 56 extends between rotator base element 24 and second base element 26 to provide additional biasing force of bottom cup holder 24 in the upward direction toward lid 14” [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to incorporate the spring as taught by Hohl in order to provide additional biasing force as taught by Hohl to the grinding pot of Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arthur et al. (US 6,244,146), hereinafter referred to as “Arthur”.
Re Claim 3, Zhang discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the actuator comprises a piston (part of first hydraulic cylinder 17 that is joined to annular plate 17, “The upper ends of the two first hydraulic cylinders 17 are jointly provided with an annular plate 21” [0027]).
Zhang fails to disclose that the piston is activated by an air pump.
Arthur teaches a pill crushing machine (tablet shearing apparatus 14) comprising a piston (part of drive cylinder 22 that engages with linkage element 26) wherein the preferred embodiment is to be activated by an air pump (“The drive cylinder 22 generally comprises a fluid pressure cylinder using fluid pressure, preferably air, to drive the linkage elements and thus apply a force moving the movable plate 58 along a path to cause shearing of the tablets 76”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by substituting the hydraulic fluid in the cylinder of Zhang for air as Arthur taught that air was a preferred fluid for applying force to move a plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable as both Zhang and Arthur use a cylinder, whether it be hydraulic of air, to move an object, whether it be a grinding pot or plate.
Re Claim 4, Zhang, in view of Arthur, disclose the pill-crushing machine of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), and Zhang, in view of Arthur, further disclose an anti-vibration mounting in which the air pump is mounted (Zhang, “Two first hydraulic cylinders 17 are fixedly connected to the fixed frame 5” [0027]. The incorporation of Arthur does not affect the fixed connection of the hydraulic cylinders and a fixed connection falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an anti-vibration mounting).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bell et al. (US2009/0072059), hereinafter referred to as “Bell” and further in view of Bonilla et al. (US 2023/0372205), hereinafter referred to as “Bonilla”.
Re Claim 5, Zhang discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Zhang further discloses a lid (mounting plate 23) from which the punch (fixing plate 25) projects downwards (Fig. 1), but fails to disclose a catch that retains the lid closed; and a spring that maintains the lid open and the punch in the first position when the lid is unlatched from the catch.
Bell teaches a pill-crushing machine comprising: a lid (lid 14) from which the punch projects downwards (Fig. 5); a catch (latch 18) that retains the lid closed (“A latch 18 or other securing feature may be used for releasably securing lid 14 in the closed position relative to base 12” [0017]); and a spring that maintains the lid open and the punch in the first position when the lid is unlatched from the catch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang by installing a catch between the mounting plate and fixing frame of Zhang in order to releasable secure the mounting plate to the fixing frame as taught by Bell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the reasonable expectation of success.
Bonilla teaches a spring that maintains the lid open (“The lid release 120 may be under spring tension until released by the pressing of a button by a user. For example and without limitation, the user may press a button and the lid 116 may flip open, the user may flick a switch and the lid 116 flips open, or the user may have to manually remove the lid release 120 , like a hook” [0037]) and the punch in the first position when the lid is unlatched from the catch (Zhang, in view of Bell, teaches a latch between the mixing plate and the fixing frame. If the mixing plate were under spring tension, as taught by Bonilla, when the mixing plate is unlatched, the mixing plate will be forward upwards by the spring.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, in view of Bell, by adding the spring taught by Bonilla in order to flip open the pill-crushing machine when the latch is opened as taught by Bonilla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 6, Zhang, in view of Bell and Bonilla, discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), and Zhang, in view of Bell and Bonilla, further discloses comprising: a frame (Zhang, fixing frame 5) to which the catch (Bell, latch 18) is connected (connected in the incorporation of Bell into Zhang); but fails to disclose a hinge connected between the frame and the lid.
Bell further teaches a hinge (hinge 16) connected (“Lid 14 may be opened ( FIG. 1) and closed ( FIGS. 2-5) relative to base 12 via a hinge 16” [0017]) between the frame (base 12) and the lid (lid 14).
Bell teaches connecting the frame and lid via a hinge in order to open the lid in a rotational manner relative to the base (Fig. 1 shows the lid opened in a rotational manner. Fig. 3 shows the lid closed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, in view of Bell and Bonilla, by including a hinge, as further taught by Bell, in order to open the lid in a rotational manner relative to the base.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bell.
Re Claim 7, Zhang discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but Zhang fails to disclose that the dish is dimensioned to hold a lower pill-crushing cup nested with an upper pill-crushing cup, with one or more pills between said pill-crushing cups; the dish engages with the lower pill-crushing cup to rotate it when the dish rotates; and a lid of the pill-crushing machine engages with the upper pill-crushing cup to prevent it rotating when the dish rotates.
Bell teaches that the dish (cup holder 22) is dimensioned to hold a lower pill-crushing cup (“Cup holder 22 includes a central recess 22 a shaped to receive a complimentary shaped cup such as cup 30” [0018]) nested with (Fig. 6) an upper pill-crushing cup (second cup 31), with one or more pills between said pill-crushing cups (Fig. 6); the dish engages with the lower pill-crushing cup to rotate it when the dish rotates (“As explained in more detail below, it is preferred that the cup not rotate with respect to the cup holder 22 . To prevent such rotation, a non-circular flange such as a hexagonal flange 32 may be incorporated on cup 30 to key into a complimentary shaped recess 34 formed in the upper perimeter of recess 22 a” [0018]); and a lid (lid 14) of the pill-crushing machine engages (head of lid 14a) with the upper pill-crushing cup to prevent it rotating when the dish rotates (“Alternatively or in addition to providing a keyed feature, a textured surface “T” may be formed on one or more surfaces of central recess 22 a to increase frictional contact with cup 30 ” [0018]. Fig. 6 shows that head of lid 14a has such a textured surface between it and second cup 31 which prevents second cup 31 from rotating when the dish rotates).
Bell teaches using cups in order to prevent cross contamination between crushing different pills. (“2. prevents cross-contamination between crushing of different pills 3. interrogation of the pill holder to ensure proper holder placement in the device and prevent accidental contamination from unauthorized pill holders” [0054]-[0005]) and rotating the lower cup while preventing the upper cup from rotating to create rotational motion between the cups and crush the pills in a rotational manner (“This simultaneous rotational and linear movement causes pills located in cup 30 to be effectively crushed and ground against surface 14 b of head 14 a.” [0020]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang by including the cups as taught by Bell in order to prevent cross-contamination and by configuring the cups to either rotate or not to create rotational motion between the cups as taught by Bell in order to effectively crush and ground the pills. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bell and further in view of Sussman (US 5,067,666).
Re Claim 11, Zhang discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Zhang further discloses a lid (mounting plate 23).
Bell teaches a pill-crushing machine comprising a lid (lid 14) and a first microswitch (“RF detector” [0022]) to detect (“Cup interrogation may be provided in any of a variety of different ways. For example, cup 30 may be wholly or partly made out of a material whose physical or chemical characteristics are detectable by a detector that may be positioned on or near cup holder 22 . Some possibilities include: 1) a polymer or other material with a particular dielectric constant that may be read by a capatenance detector; or 2) an RF tag that may be read by an RF detector; or 3) a bar code that may be read by a bar code scanner; or 4) a metallic or ferrous oxide material that may be read by a resistive or magnetic detector; or 5) a proximity detector that detects when a material object is placed near the detector; or 6) an LED or other optical component detectable by an appropriate optical detector.” [0022]-[0028]) a presence in the dish of an upper pill-crushing cup (second cup 31) of a nested pair (cups 30, 31) of pill-crushing cups (the RF detector detects the presence of both cups, including the upper cup).
Bell teaches using cups in order to prevent cross contamination between crushing different pills. (“2. prevents cross-contamination between crushing of different pills 3. interrogation of the pill holder to ensure proper holder placement in the device and prevent accidental contamination from unauthorized pill holders” [0054]-[0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to include the cups taught by Bell in order to prevent cross contamination and to include the RF tags in the upper cup and the RF detector as taught by Bell in order to detect whether the proper cup is placed within the device.
Zhang, in view of Bell, does not disclose a first microswitch located in the lid. Bell states that the “detector that may be positioned on or near cup holder 22” ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang, in view of Bell, to arrange the RF detector such that it is located in the lid, which is located near the cup holder, as it has been held that merely rearranging features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection VI.C)
Sussman teaches a second microswitch (microswitch 51) located to detect that the lid is closed (“Microswitch 51, is mounted within housing 11 and is employed in the operation of device 10 and senses when drawer 22 is closed. Until switch 51 senses that drawer 22 is closed, the power to motor 29 is interrupted and device 10 will not operate. This safeguard prevents such serious occurences as damage to the unit and possible loss of pulverized particles” Col. 3, Lines 50-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, in view of Bell, by incorporating the microswitch as taught by Sussman in order to prevent damage to the pill-crushing machine (“This safeguard prevents such serious occurences as damage to the unit and possible loss of pulverized particles” Col. 3, Lines 54-56). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 12, Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and Bell further teaches further a catch (latch 18) and a third microswitch located to detect that the catch has hooked the lid (“A switch may also be provided adjacent lid latch 18 such that motor 26 operates only when lid 14 is closed and latched” [0021]).
Bell teaches including a latch to secure the lid to the frame (“A latch 18 or other securing feature may be used for releasably securing lid 14 in the closed position relative to base 12” [0017]) and a switch to ensure the lid is closed in order to prevent accidents (“prevent accidents such as fingers getting caught in the device by allowing motor operation only when a cup is detected in cup holder 22” [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, to incorporate the latch and switch to detect if the latch is closed as further taught by Bell in order to secure the lid to the frame and prevent accidents.
Re Claim 14, Zhang discloses a method of comminuting one or more pills (“a drug crushing device” [0027]), the method comprising: biasing a dish (grinding pot 20) of a pill-crushing machine upwards (“The upper ends of the two first hydraulic cylinders 17 are jointly provided with an annular plate 21” [0027], the grinding pot being connected to the annular plate either by being suspended by pin 30 or by resting on annular plate by force of gravity), the dish being rotatable (“A drive motor 6 is fixedly connected to the upper end of the grinding pot 20. When the switch of the drive motor 6 is turned on, the drive motor 6 rotates and drives the grinding pot 20 to rotate.” [0027]); the lid (mounting plate 23) having a punch (fixing plate 25) that projects into the dish (Fig. 1); rotating the dish (“When the switch of the drive motor 6 is turned on, the drive motor 6 rotates and drives the grinding pot 20 to rotate.” [0027]); using a motor (drive motor 6) and an actuator (first hydraulic cylinder 17).
Zhang does not disclose comminuting one or more pills between a nested pair of pill-crushing cups, detecting that a lid of the pill-crushing machine is closed; detecting that an upper pill-crushing cup of the nested pair is present in the dish; and simultaneously: rotating the dish using a motor, to rotate a lower pill-crushing cup of the nested pair; and increasing, by an actuator, an upwards force on the dish.
Bell teaches that the dish (cup holder 22) is dimensioned to hold a lower pill-crushing cup (“Cup holder 22 includes a central recess 22 a shaped to receive a complimentary shaped cup such as cup 30” [0018]) nested with (Fig. 6) an upper pill-crushing cup (second cup 31), with one or more pills between said pill-crushing cups (Fig. 6).
Bell teaches using cups in order to prevent cross contamination between crushing different pills. (“2. prevents cross-contamination between crushing of different pills 3. interrogation of the pill holder to ensure proper holder placement in the device and prevent accidental contamination from unauthorized pill holders” [0054]-[0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang by including the cups as taught by Bell in order to prevent cross-contamination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the reasonable expectation of success.
Sussman teaches a second microswitch (microswitch 51) located to detect that the lid is closed (“Microswitch 51, is mounted within housing 11 and is employed in the operation of device 10 and senses when drawer 22 is closed. Until switch 51 senses that drawer 22 is closed, the power to motor 29 is interrupted and device 10 will not operate. This safeguard prevents such serious occurences as damage to the unit and possible loss of pulverized particles” Col. 3, Lines 50-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, in view of Bell, by incorporating the microswitch as taught by Sussman in order to prevent damage to the pill-crushing machine (“This safeguard prevents such serious occurences as damage to the unit and possible loss of pulverized particles” Col. 3, Lines 54-56). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Bell further teaches a pill-crushing machine comprising a lid (lid 14) and a first microswitch (“RF detector” [0022]) to detect (“Cup interrogation may be provided in any of a variety of different ways. For example, cup 30 may be wholly or partly made out of a material whose physical or chemical characteristics are detectable by a detector that may be positioned on or near cup holder 22 . Some possibilities include: 1) a polymer or other material with a particular dielectric constant that may be read by a capatenance detector; or 2) an RF tag that may be read by an RF detector; or 3) a bar code that may be read by a bar code scanner; or 4) a metallic or ferrous oxide material that may be read by a resistive or magnetic detector; or 5) a proximity detector that detects when a material object is placed near the detector; or 6) an LED or other optical component detectable by an appropriate optical detector.” [0022]-[0028]) a presence in the dish of an upper pill-crushing cup (second cup 31) of a nested pair (cups 30, 31) of pill-crushing cups (the RF detector detects the presence of both cups, including the upper cup).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, to include the RF tags in the upper cup and the RF detector as further taught by Bell in order to detect whether the proper cup is placed within the device.
Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, discloses a method that differs from the claimed device by not simultaneously rotating the dish using a motor, to rotate a lower pill-crushing cup of the nested pair; and increasing, by an actuator, an upwards force on the dish. Zhang discloses two grinding states: a first state where the grinding pot is stationary (“during use, the medicine is added to the grinding pot 20. Then, the switch of the second hydraulic cylinder 22 is turned on, and the second hydraulic cylinder 22 pushes the fixed plate 25 to move. The movement of the fixed plate 25 causes the grinding plate 2 and the grinding particles 3 to crush the medicine into small particles.” [0029]) and a second state where the grinding pot rotates (“Then, the switch of the first hydraulic cylinder 17 is turned on, and the first hydraulic cylinder 17 moves so that the hexagonal block 19 at the lower end of the grinding pot 20 is located in the hexagonal groove at the upper end of the connector 18. Then, the switch of the drive motor 6 is turned on, and the drive motor 6 rotates to drive the grinding pot 20 to rotate. The rotation of the grinding pot 20 causes the granular medicine to rub against the grinding particles 3, thereby grinding the medicine particles into powder.” [0029]) While the second grinding state includes simultaneous rotational and linear movement (“A fixed plate is fixedly connected to the telescopic end of the second hydraulic cylinder.” [0010] and “The rotation of the grinding pot 20 causes the granular medicine to rub against the grinding particles 3, thereby grinding the medicine particles into powder.” [0027]), these forces are not both acting upon the grinding dish as the linear movement is provided by the telescopic end of the second hydraulic cylinder moving the fixed plate, comprising grinding particles, into the grinding pot while the grinding pot is rotated by a drive motor (“A hexagonal block 19 is fixedly connected to the lower end of the grinding pot 20. A fixing frame 5 is also present. A drive motor 6 is fixedly connected to the upper end of the grinding pot 20.” [0027]) which it is connected to via a hexagonal block. Because the drive motor’s fixed vertical position (Fig. 6), if the first hydraulic cylinder increased upward force on the grinding pot, the grinding pot would move upwards, disconnecting from the drive motor, and stop rotating. However, if, instead of the fixing plate and the grinding pot being movable to and from the drive motor via the first and second hydraulic cylinders, the grinding pot and drive motor were movable to and from the fixing plate fixedly connected to the mounting plate via the first and second hydraulic cylinder, respectively, the method of Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, would be able to simultaneously rotate the dish using a motor, to rotate a lower pill-crushing cup of the nested pair; and increase, by an actuator, an upwards force on the dish
Bell further teaches simultaneously: rotating the dish using a motor, to rotate a lower pill-crushing cup of the nested pair; and increasing an upwards force on the dish (“Rotation of platform 24 in a first direction causes a simultaneous rotation and linear translation of cup holder 22 toward lid 14 . Linear translation is provided by ramp 24 b against which flange 22 c, extending downwardly from cup holder bottom surface 22 d, rides along as motor 26 rotates platform 24 . This simultaneous rotational and linear movement causes pills located in cup 30 to be effectively crushed and ground against surface 14 b of head 14 a.” [0020]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, by having the telescopic arm of the second hydraulic cylinder attached to the drive motor and the other end of the second hydraulic cylinder attached to the bottom of fixing frame in order to simultaneously rotate the grinding pot and increase an upwards force upon it in order to effectively crush the pills as further taught by Bell.
Re Claim 16, Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, disclose the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), but fails to disclose engaging the lid with the upper pill-crushing cup to prevent the upper pill-crushing cup from rotating while the lower pill-crushing cup is rotated.
Bell teaches that a lid (lid 14) of the pill-crushing machine engages (head of lid 14a) with the upper pill-crushing cup to prevent it rotating when the dish rotates (“Alternatively or in addition to providing a keyed feature, a textured surface “T” may be formed on one or more surfaces of central recess 22 a to increase frictional contact with cup 30 ” [0018]. Fig. 6 shows that head of lid 14a has such a textured surface between it and second cup 31 which prevents second cup 31 from rotating when the dish rotates).
Bell teaches rotating the lower cup while preventing the upper cup from rotating to create rotational motion between the cups and crush the pills in a rotational manner (“This simultaneous rotational and linear movement causes pills located in cup 30 to be effectively crushed and ground against surface 14 b of head 14 a.” [0020]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang by configuring the cups to either rotate or not to create rotational motion between the cups as taught by Bell in order to effectively crush and ground the pills. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bell and further in view of Lin (CN107811866).
Re Claim 13, Zhang discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose a lid base; a touchscreen mounted on the lid base; and a lid cover that exposes the touchscreen.
Lin teaches a lid base (inner cavity 22 of reminder device 2); a touchscreen (control panel 3 including display screen 36 and control button 32) mounted on the lid base (Fig. 2); and a lid cover (reminder cover 1) that exposes the touchscreen (Fig. 1).
Zhang contains a base pill-crushing machine upon which the claimed invention could be seen as an improvement. Lin teaches a pill-crushing machine that has been improved in the same way. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the known improvement as taught by Lin to the pill-crushing machine of Zhang and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the predictable result of being able to keep time (“When in operation, the reminder device 2 can adjust the medication time through the control panel 3.” [0028])
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Arthur.
Re Claim 15, Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, disclose the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the actuator comprises a piston (part of first hydraulic cylinder 17 that is joined to annular plate 17, “The upper ends of the two first hydraulic cylinders 17 are jointly provided with an annular plate 21” [0027]).
Zhang fails to disclose that the piston is activated by an air pump.
Arthur teaches a pill crushing machine (tablet shearing apparatus 14) comprising a piston (part of drive cylinder 22 that engages with linkage element 26) wherein the preferred embodiment is to be activated by an air pump (“The drive cylinder 22 generally comprises a fluid pressure cylinder using fluid pressure, preferably air, to drive the linkage elements and thus apply a force moving the movable plate 58 along a path to cause shearing of the tablets 76”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by substituting the hydraulic fluid in the cylinder of Zhang for air as Arthur taught that air was a preferred fluid for applying force to move a plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable as both Zhang and Arthur use a cylinder, whether it be hydraulic of air, to move an object, whether it be a grinding pot or plate.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Weisbeck (US2006/0043224).
Re Claim 17, Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, disclose the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), but fails to disclose detecting that a vibration level in the pill-crushing machine has fallen below a threshold; and, in response, stopping the dish rotating and reducing the upwards force on the dish.
Weisbeck teaches detecting (“operator can feel” [0068]) that a vibration level in the pill-crushing machine (“sound and feel of the action” [0068]) has fallen below a threshold (“change in sound and feel which occur indicating the breakdown of the pills sufficiently to remove any larger particles” [0068]); and, in response, stopping the grinding action (“The operator can feel the crushing action occurring since the sound and feel of the action changes as the pills break down into particulate form. Brief experience will show to the operator the amount of time necessary and the change in sound and feel which occur indicating the breakdown of the pills sufficiently to remove any larger particles which would interfere with the material being taken in powder form by the patient.” [0068]).
Weisbeck teaches stopping the grinding action after reaching a certain threshold in order to prevent the materials from being crushed into the surface of the grinding mechanism (“The repeated tamping action tends to break down the pills without applying sufficient force to damage the pouch or to crush the materials into the surface of the pouch” [0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang, in view of Bell and Sussman, by detecting that a vibration level in the pill-crushing machine has fallen below a threshold; and, in response, stopping the dish rotating and reducing the upwards force on the dish as taught by Weisbeck in order to prevent the pills from being crushed into the surface of the pill cups.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Marshall (US 6,508,424).
Re Claim 9, Zhang discloses the pill-crushing machine of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), but fails to disclose a first gear attached to the motor and rotated by the motor; and a second gear in the table and rotated by the first gear.
Marshall discloses a first gear (drive gear 46) attached to the motor (electric motor 44) and rotated by the motor (“the drive motor 44 causes the drive gear 46 to rotate, translating this motion to the turntable 34”); and a second gear (détente 42, “The outer circumferential sidewall 42 extends downward about the upper surface 36, forming a drive skirt 40 terminating at the lower end in a series of radially aligned detents 42. Each detente 42 forms a drive gear cut at an 45 degree angle inward for engagement with the drive mechanism”) in the table (turntable 34) and rotated by the first gear (“The drive gear 46 is cut at a 45 degree angle, and is positioned upward for engagement with the detents 42”) and one or more bearings (assembly comprising vertical hub 56, spring 50, guide collar 48, annular support 49) upon which the table is mounted (Figs. 1-4).
Zhang discloses a pill crusher machine which differed from the claimed pill crusher machine by using a drive motor and its output shaft to rotate the table upon which the dish is mounted. Marshall discloses a pill crushing machine which uses a gear system wherein the final gear of the gear system is integral with the table to rotate the table upon which the dish is mounted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the motor, output shaft, and connection between the output shaft and connector of Zhang for the electric motor, drive gear, and détente of Marshall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized results of this substitution as predictable because the components of Marshall were known to cause the table to rotate (“the drive motor 44 causes the drive gear 46 to rotate, translating this motion to the turntable 34”), which was the same function of the substituted components of Zhang.
Examiner notes that the motor, output shaft, and connection between the output shaft and connector of Zhang, the end of the output shaft in particular, are also bearings that bear the weight of the grinding pot which is mounted atop it. It would have been obvious to have substituted these components for the assembly comprising vertical hub, spring, guide collar, annular support of Marshall, which are shown in Fig. 3 to bear the turn table and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognize the results of this combination as predictable because both sets of components support a table. Furthermore the assembly of Marshall provides an urging force upon the table (“the turntable 34 is rotated about a center, vertical hub 56 which functions as an axle. The hub 56 is supported at its lower end by a guide collar 48 in a vertically slidable manner. The guide collar 48 supports an upper annular support 49 that supports a turntable resistance spring 50. The turntable resistance spring 50 functions to provide an upward urging force between the turntable 34 and the bottom of the container 12”). It would have been obvious to have substituted the motor, output shaft, and connection between the output shaft and connector of Zhang for the assembly of Marshall in order to provide an urging force upon the table as taught by Marshall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose a bearing mounting mounted on the piston wherein the one or more tie bars prevent the piston and bearing mounting from rotating, inter alia, in combination with the other limitations of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Albrecht (US2645936) teaches a pill-crushing machine comprising a piston activated by an air pump
Chen (CN114569465) teaches a display and cover
Hall (US20060088422) teaches a pill-crushing machine that is configured to provide linear and rotational motion to the punch, but differs from the claimed invention by having one motor that provides both motions instead of a motor that provides rotation and an actuator that provides linear motion and in [providing those motions to the punch, not the dish.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights