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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/21/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 and 14 disclose “a first reference surface” twice, and then refers to the “the first reference surface” it is unclear if there are actually two reference surfaces, and if so, which one “the first reference surface” is referring to. For the purposes of examination, there is only one first reference surface, of the retention feature. Claim 1 and 14 are amended below to reflect this interpretation.
Claim 7 discloses another “a second lateral direction” after having disclosed it in claim 1. It is unclear if this is a different second lateral direction or not. For the purposes of examination, the second lateral directions are the same.
Claims 2-13,15-20 are rejected in view of their dependency on claim 1 or claim 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-5,7-8,14-15,16,18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehrie US 3183029.
Regarding claim 1, Gehrie teaches a mechanism for securing a lid (“A”) to a housing (“B”), the mechanism comprising:
NOTE: Gehrie’s lid is actually considered to be element B, and the housing considered to be element A. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the latch be on the lid B and the latch mechanism portion to be on housing A since the rearrangement of parts are a design consideration that is of routine skill since the rearrangement would not alter the function of the device. This is taken into account in Examiner’s interpretation of the Gehrie reference – see above preamble where lid is given the reference “A” and housing is given the reference “B”.
a latch (18+20) being moveable relative to the lid, the latch extending from the lid and comprising a retention feature (20) having a first reference surface (22); and
a latch mechanism portion (61,61’,28,27,64) coupled to the housing, the latch mechanism portion comprising:
an engagement element (61’), freely movable between a first position (fig4) and a second position (similarly shown in fig5), configured to engage the retention feature in the first position to restrict vertical movement of the lid (restricts further movement of lid into housing), and disengage from the retention feature in the second position to permit vertical movement of the lid; and
a first alignment feature (27) having a first alignment surface (surface of 27), the first alignment feature configured to displace the latch (displaces it in x direction) such that the first reference surface aligns with the first alignment surface (fig4, as the latch moves to the x direction, it enables the alignment of 22 to 27), wherein the first alignment feature is configured to initially displace the latch in a first lateral direction (in x direction) away from the engagement element and then in a second lateral direction (Y direction; after it moves a certain distance in x direction, the latch is once again moving in the second lateral direction to engage, fig4-5) that is opposite to the first lateral direction towards the engagement element (by moving in this direction , portion 20 of the latch is moving towards the engagement element as well, therefore it is considered to move to the first lateral direction towards the engagement element), such that the first reference surface aligns with the first alignment surface when the lid is moved toward the housing and after the latch contacts the first alignment feature. (fig4-5)
Regarding claim 2, Gehrie teaches the mechanism of Claim 1, wherein the first alignment feature is configured to displace the latch when the lid is moved toward the housing such that the first reference surface aligns with the first alignment surface. (fig4-5)
Regarding claim 4, Gehrie teaches the mechanism of Claim 1, wherein the first alignment feature is formed as a portion of the housing (fig4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Gehrie teaches the mechanism of Claim 1, wherein the latch comprises a second reference surface (surface of 18 that is parallel to 64, fig4-5) perpendicular to the first reference surface.
Regarding claim 7, Gehrie teaches the mechanism of Claim 1, further comprising a second alignment feature (64) configured to displace the latch in the second lateral direction. (64 enables realignment with 18 and 20, by engaging 18, therefore moving the latch in the Y direction, fig4-5, col.4 lines 41-75)
Regarding claim 8, Gehrie teaches the mechanism of Claim 7, wherein the second alignment feature is formed as a portion of the housing. (fig4-5)
Regarding claim 14, Gehrie teaches the apparatus of a lid and housing with a latch and latch mechanism and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Gehrie is also capable of teaching the method comprising:
NOTE: Gehrie’s lid is actually considered to be element B, and the housing considered to be element A. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the latch be on the lid B and the latch mechanism portion to be on housing A since the rearrangement of parts are a design consideration that is of routine skill since the rearrangement would not alter the function of the device.
moving a lid (“A”) comprising a first latch mechanism portion (fig1-5) comprising a latch (18+20) extending from the lid and being moveable relative to the lid, toward a housing(“B”), the latch comprising a retention feature(20) having a first reference surface (22), and the housing comprising a second latch mechanism portion (61,61’,28,27,64) comprising a first alignment feature (27) and an engagement element (61’) freely movable between a first position (fig4) and a second position (fig5); and
engaging the latch against the first alignment feature and a second alignment feature (64) to laterally displace the latch such that the first reference surface aligns with a first alignment surface (surface of 27) of the first alignment feature and in a second lateral direction (Y direction) that is opposite a first lateral direction (X direction) toward the engagement element (by moving in this direction , portion 20 of the latch is moving towards the engagement element as well, therefore it is considered to move to the first lateral direction towards the engagement element) after displacing the latch in the first lateral direction, when the lid is moved toward the housing and after the latch contacts the first alignment surface. (fig4-5, col.4 lines 41-75)
Regarding claim 15, Gehrie teaches the method of Claim 14, further comprising engaging the latch against the first alignment feature and the second alignment feature when the lid is moved toward the housing. (fig4-5, col.4 lines 41-75)
Regarding claim 16, Gehrie teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein engaging the latch against the first alignment feature and the second alignment feature further comprises initially displacing the latch in a first lateral direction via the first alignment feature away from the engagement element. (fig4-5, col.4 lines 41-75)
Regarding claim 18, Gehrie teaches the method of Claim 14, further comprising directing the engagement element to the first position such that the engagement element interlocks with the retention feature. (fig4-5, col.4 lines 41-75; NOTE: One definition of ‘interlock’ according to Merriam-Webster online is “to connect so that the motion or operation of any part is considered constrained by another”. In this instance, the engagement element constrains the motion of the retention feature.)
Regarding claim 19, Gehrie teaches the method of Claim 18, further comprising restricting vertical movement of the lid. (fig4-5)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehrie US 3183029, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Broadfield et al. US 7040504.
Regarding claim 6, Gehrie teaches the mechanism of Claim 1, with a housing but does not teach wherein the housing is configured to contain medications and to be inserted into a drawer of an automated dispensing machine.
Broadfield teaches a mechanism wherein the housing (42) is configured to contain medications and to be inserted into a drawer (114, fig14) of an automated dispensing machine (110). (abstract)
It would have been obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mechanism of Gehrie on a housing that is configured to contain medications and to be inserted into a drawer of an automated dispensing machine, as taught by Broadfield, since this is considered intended use of the mechanism and the mechanism would remail functionally equivalent in either use. MPEP2144.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9-13, 17 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, Gehrie does not teach the engagement element moving in a second lateral direction (Y direction of Gehrie) when the lid is brought towards the housing.
Regarding claim 9 (10-13), Gehrie does not teach a third alignment feature to displace the latch in a third direction.
Regarding claim 17, Gehrie does teach the latch moves in the X direction it is not before the latch contacts the first alignment surface (27), rather while and after it contacts it.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12196007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims disclose a mechanism with a lid and housing, a latch, a latch mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to latch mechanisms.
PTO892 lists related but not relied upon prior art: US 11845590, US 12365518.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675