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 filed 02/09/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections based on Palmer/Blum have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Palmer requires a proboscis to dispense medication under the tongue and therefor the housing would not be considered cuboid. However, even with the proboscis the housing is still generally cuboid with the proboscis defining the dispensing opening of the housing. Additionally, the proboscis is only a preferred embodiment and Palmer explicitly discloses other possible embodiments including dispensing directly to a user’s hand, which would not require the proboscis (col 25 lines 63-67). Removing the proboscis and its function of delivering a drug under the tongue would have been obvious to one skilled in the art if the function of delivering a drug under the tongue is not the desired delivery location. Applicant argues that the drive mechanism of Palmer is not configured to guide the at least one pod along a linear, a circular, or an elliptical path from the starting position. However, Palmer clearly discloses a drive mechanism 51 which pushes a pod 69 from a starting position 63 to a delivery position 57 defining a linear path as shown in figure 6. Arguing that the starting position is within the magazine itself would mean that applicant’s own invention would not define a linear path, but and L-shaped path. Additionally, the dispensing mechanism does not move the pod in an L- shaped bath, the dispensing mechanism only moves the pod in a linear path. For at least the foregoing reasons claims 1-7,9-14,16-18 and 21-22 stand rejected.
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 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) 1-7,9,11-14,16-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al. US 8,499,966 in view of Blum et al. US 2017/0193191.
Palmer discloses an apparatus for oral nicotine dispensing, wherein the apparatus comprises:
(Re claim 1) “a body formed in a cuboid shape or a cylindrical shape, the body comprising an access restriction mechanism” (11 figure 1A, col 22 lines 45-65). “the access restriction mechanism comprising at least one of a radio frequency chip or a biometric sensor” (col 22 lines 45-64). “a magazine fastened to the body and configured to store a plurality of pods” (15, 17, figure 1C,2). “a drive mechanism coupled to the magazine and configured to guide at least one pod of the plurality of pods from a starting position into a dispensing position” (col 22 lines 45-64, 51 figure 2; 51, 57,63 figure 6). “an aperture located on the body, wherein the aperture is configured to allow for dispensing of the at least one pod from the dispensing position to an exterior environment” (29 figure 2). “a locking mechanism coupled to the access restriction mechanism, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to prevent access to the plurality of pods in a locked state and is configured to allow dispensing of the at least one pod in an unlocked state, and wherein the locking mechanism is configured to convert from the locked to the unlocked state upon successful authentication of a user by the access restriction mechanism” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39). “the power source is electrically coupled to the drive mechanism and is configured to power the dispensing of the at least one pod” (col 28 lines 22-33, col 8 lines 39-41). “Wherein the drive mechanism is configured to guide the at least one pod along a linear, a circular or an elliptical path from the starting position to the dispensing position” (51, 57,63 figure 6).
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 that the magazine comprises a power source.
Blum teaches that the magazine comprises a power source (‘cartridge’, ‘battery’, ‘sufficient size to power … other subsystems’ para 0024).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include that the magazine comprises a power source because it eliminates the need to recharge the dispenser or replace a separate battery.
(Re claim 2) “the radio frequency chip comprises at least one of a bluetooth chip, an RFID chip, a Zigbee chip, or an NFC chip” (col 3 lines 10-16, col 45 lines 47-55).
(Re claim 3) “the access restriction mechanism is coupled with the drive mechanism to allow the dispensing of the at least one pod from the apparatus when the locking mechanism is in the unlocked state” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39).
(Re claim 4) “the access restriction mechanism is configured to pair with an external computing device to set-up an initial user authentication” (col 45 lines 27-55).
(Re claim 5) “wherein the access restriction mechanism comprises the biometric sensor” (col 28 lines 22-33).
(Re claim 6) “wherein the biometric sensor is configured to collect at least one data type selected from fingerprint, eye, blood, hand geometry, custom saved gestures, custom saved drawing gesture, face scanning, voice recognition, or vein mapping” (col 28 lines 22-33).
(Re claim 7) “wherein the apparatus is further configured to locally store biometric data related to the user” (col 28 lines 22-33). The dispensing device would require locally stored biometric data to verify the user.
(Re claim 9) “the magazine is further configured to be removed from the body and replaced with a replacement magazine” (17 figure 1C).
(Re claim 11) “the drive mechanism comprises a motor, a spring, a power source, and a circuit board” (col 21-22 lines 54-8, 73 figure 6, col 24 lines 52-54, col 28 lines 22-33).
(Re claim 12) Palmer disclose that the power source is a battery
Palmer does not disclose that the power source is in the magazine and that is comprises at least one of a battery or a piezoelectric hammer starter.
Blum teaches that the power source is in the magazine and that is comprises at least one of a battery or a piezoelectric hammer starter(‘cartridge’, ‘battery’ para 0024).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include that the power source is in the magazine and that is comprises at least one of a battery or a piezoelectric hammer starter because it eliminates the need to recharge the dispenser or replace a separate battery.
(Re claim 13) “wherein the drive mechanism comprises a spring configured to be loaded with the plurality of pods within the magazine” (claim 9).
(Re claim 14) “wherein the drive mechanism comprises one or more of: a linear tray configuration; a drop down tray configuration; or a revolver configuration” (17 figure 1C,2).
Palmer discloses a method for oral nicotine dispensing, the method comprising:
(Re claim 16) “providing a magazine comprising a plurality of a pods” (17 figure 1C,2). “inserting the magazine into a body to position each of the plurality of pods in a starting position” (17,67, 63 figure 1D,2,6). “wherein the body is formed in a cuboid shape or a cylindrical shape” (11 figure 1E). “the body
comprises an access restriction mechanism and a locking mechanism” (col 28 lines 22-33). “wherein the locking mechanism is configured to prevent access to the plurality of pods in a locked state and is configured to allow dispensing of at least one pod of the plurality of pods in an unlocked state” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39). “receiving user information through the access restriction mechanism” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39). “authenticating the received user information” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39). “converting the locking mechanism from the locked to the unlocked state, upon successful authentication of the user by the access restriction mechanism” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39). “subsequently dispensing the at least one pod from the magazine through an aperture in the body into the user’s hand” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39, 29 figure 2, col 25 lines 63-67). “using a drive mechanism powered by the power source” (col 28 lines 22-33, col 8 lines 39-41). “wherein the at least one pod travels along a linear, a circular, or an elliptical path from the starting position to the aperture” (51,69,63,57 figure 6).
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 that the magazine comprises a power source.
Blum teaches that the magazine comprises a power source (‘cartridge’, ‘battery’, ‘sufficient size to power … other subsystems’ para 0024).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include that the magazine comprises a power source because it eliminates the need to recharge the dispenser or replace a separate battery.
(Re claim 17) “wherein the receiving of the user information, the authentication of the user information, and the conversion from the locked to the unlocked state is done at a point of sale of the apparatus or at a pre-specified time interval” (col 45 lines 27-55).
(Re claim 18) “setting up an initial user authentication via a smart phone and a mobile app or web app, prior to the receiving of the user information through the access restriction mechanism” (col 45 lines 27-55).
Palmer discloses an apparatus for oral nicotine dispensing, wherein the apparatus comprises:
(Re claim 21) “a body formed a cuboid shape or a cylindrical shape” (11 figure 1A, col 22 lines 45-65). “a magazine fastened to the body and configured to store a plurality of pods” (15, 17, figure 1C,2). “a drive mechanism coupled to the magazine and configured to guide at least one pod of the plurality of pods from a starting position into a dispensing position” (col 22 lines 45-64, 51 figure 2; 51,69,63,57 figure 6). “an aperture located on the body, wherein the aperture is configured to allow for dispensing of the at least one pod from the dispensing position to an exterior environment” (29 figure 2). “a locking mechanism, configured to prevent access to the plurality of pods in a locked state and configured to allow dispensing of the at least one pod in an unlocked state” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39). “power source is electrically coupled to at least one of the drive mechanism or the locking mechanism” (col 28 lines 23-33, col 17 lines 31-39). “the power source is electrically coupled to the drive mechanism and is configured to power the dispensing of the at least one pod” (col 28 lines 22-33, col 8 lines 39-41). “the drive mechanism is configured to guide the at least one pod along a linear, a circular, or an elliptical path from the starting position to the dispensing position” (51,69,63,57 figure 6).
Palmer does not disclose that the magazine comprises a power source.
Blum teaches that the magazine comprises a power source (‘cartridge’, ‘battery’, ‘sufficient size to power … other subsystems’ para 0024).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Palmer to include that the magazine comprises a power source because it eliminates the need to recharge the dispenser or replace a separate battery.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer/Blum further in view of Edwards et al. US 2013/0327327.
Palmer/Blum discloses the system as rejected above.
Palmer/Blum does not disclose that magazine comprises a magazine housing formed of at least one of a biodegradable plastic resin or a compostable plastic resin.
Edwards teaches that magazine comprises a magazine housing formed of at least one of a biodegradable plastic resin or a compostable plastic resin (‘cartridge’, ‘biodegradable plastic’ para 0043).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the dispenser of Palmer/Blum to include that magazine comprises a magazine housing formed of at least one of a biodegradable plastic resin or a compostable plastic resin because it is considered more eco-friendly.
Conclusion
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